Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53968/2013dismissed

Md. Israfil @ Mohamad Israfil And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2016-07-28Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 53968 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 2011 Thana -TEDHAGACH District- KISANGANJ ======================================================

1. Md. Israfil @ Mohamad Israfil S/O Md. Shahibur Rahman Resident of Village Khorag Shikti, P.S. Shikti, District Araria.

2. Md. Kamal @ Kamamo @ Kalimuddin @ Kamalo S/O Late Abdul Kudush Resident of Village Mali Tola Matiyari, Harhariya, P.S Teragach, District Kishanganj.

3. Subodh Kumar Singh @ Subodh Kumar S/O Late Bipin Kumar @ Bipin Pd. Sinha, Resident of Village Harhariya, P.S. Teragach, Distrit Kishanganj. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Sinha Mr. Diwakar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pramod Kr. Pandey(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

28-07-2016 Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Diwakar Sinha, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Three petitioners have approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 24-07-2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in Sessions Trial No. 603 of 2012 (arising out of Teragach P.S. Case No. 29 of 2011). By the said order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had framed charges under Sections 420, 413, 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53968 of 2013 (2) dt.28-07-2016 2/2 At the very outset, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that from the order impugned itself, it is evident that before framing of charge, discharge petition was filed, which was not pressed.

Keeping in view the fact that after framing of charge, trial commences, the Court is of the opinion that there is no reason to pass any favourable order.

Dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T