Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30956/2016dismissed

Suraj Kumar Tiwari v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2023-09-14Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30956 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1730 Year-2015 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Suraj Kumar Tiwari son of Sri Kamla Tiwari resident of Mohalla- Sankar Nagar, Chandwa More, Ara, Police Station-Ara- Nawada, District-Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar 2.

Sri Krishna Mohan son of Late Tej Narayan Mishra, resident of village and Post Office- Bharauli, Police Station- Shahpur, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-09-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 24.02.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in Cr. Revision No.05 of 2016, whereby the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara in Complaint No.1730(C) of 2015, S.L. No.46 of 2015 dismissing the complaint has been affirmed.

3. The learned Additional P. P., at the outset, submits that the present quashing application is not maintainable in view

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30956 of 2016(2) dt.14-09-2023 2/3 of Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C., which bars second revision. It is next submitted that no doubt, the present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., but then in reality, it is a second revision. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate after due application of mind dismissed the complaint petition, which was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No.05 of 2016, as such, when two Courts have applied their mind, whether it would be justified for the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to interfere in the order when the same does not border on perversity.

4. The learned Additional P. P. next submits that from bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the revision application of the petitioner, it would manifest that the same does not suffer from any infirmity nor the learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to point out any infirmity committed by the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the Criminal Revision.

5. The learned Additional P. P. next submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Ram Kalita vs. State of Asam (2009) 13 SCC 313 at Para-10 has observed that "it is settled legal proposition that if the Courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30956 of 2016(2) dt.14-09-2023 3/3 Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse."

6. Considering the submission made by the learned Additional P. P., the Court is not inclined to entertain the quashing application and thus, rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T