← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20969/2013allowed

Atul Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

2015-07-14Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20969 of 2013 (3) dt.14-07-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20969 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1606 Year- 2009 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- BANKA ====================================================== Atul Mishra S/O Late Shoboha Kant Mishra R/O Village- Bharko, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Brajesh Pathak

3. Nitesh pathak Both sons of Niranjan Pathak

4. Manoranjan Pathak, son of Prabhash Pathak

5. Sharad Chandra Thakur @ Bachuwa Son of Suresh Thakur

6. Nirmal Kumar Choudhry @ Tumla, son of Late Sachidanand Choudhary

7. Sibam Yadav son of Subhak Lal Yadav All are resident of village - Bharko, P.S. Amarpur, District - Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 14-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 7 along with learned Additional P.P.

Gone through the impugned order. It happens to be a ridiculous affair followed by the learned Lower Court while proceeding with the case and counter case. In one case, he had examined the Doctor and the same doctor, who happens to be the witness in counter case, was not at all examined. More particularly in the background of considering the Section 323 of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20969 of 2013 (3) dt.14-07-2015 the Indian Penal Code. Section whereunder charge has been framed is immaterial during course of trial. Therefore, the learned Lower Court should have examined the doctor. Nonexamination of doctor, certainly has caused prejudice to the petitioner/complainant.

That being so, the order dated 16.04.2013 is set aside. Petition is allowed.

Moreover, learned Lower Court is directed to issue process, procure attendance of the doctor and examine him at once and thereafter, proceed further in accordance with law. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Jagdish/- U T