Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24467/2016dismissed

Arun Kumar Rai v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2020-09-11Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24467 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-227 Year-2003 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Arun Kumar Rai Son of late Sital Prasad Rai Resident of Village- Kharauna, PS Tarari, District Bhojpur.l ... ... Petitioner

Versus

State Of Bihar 2.

Anil Kumar son of S.D. Rai Resident of Village- Kharauna, PS Tarari, District Bhojpur.Present Address Quarter No. C 132 Police Colony, Anisabad.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dineshwar Prasad Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Abhay Kr.Roy, APP For O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-09-2020 Heard Mr. Dineshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant/ opposite party no. 2. The State is represented by Mr. Abhay Kr. Roy, learned APP.

This is an application seeking quashing of the F.I.R. of Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 227 of 2003 dated 12.12.2003 instituted for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 423, 448, 468, 471, 500, 504 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon this Court that none of the offences in the First Information Report can at all be said to have been made out and that this is a case of civil dispute and abuse of the process of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24467 of 2016(2) dt.11-09-2020 2/2 Court but the fact remains that the chargesheet in this case has already been submitted.

Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant / opposite party no. 2 has also informed this Court that two witnesses have uptil now been examined. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. The prayer for quashing of the subject F.I.R is dismissed.

However, considering the fact that it is an old case, the trial must be expedite and concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the Trial Court.

This application stands dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) sunilkumar/- U T