← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./46767/2012dismissed

Raj Kishore Prasad Mahto v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-04-30Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46767 of 2012 ====================================================== Raj Kishore Prasad Mahto S/o Late Hemant Mahto resident of village - Chauhatta, P.S. Manpur, District - West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Yogendra Yadav S/o Ganga Yadav, resident of village - Chauhatta, P.S. Manpur, District - West Champaran.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Nath Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kanhaiya Kishore (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 30-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 9th March 2011 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 261 of 2010 by which he has framed the charge under sections 147/148/ 452/149/ 436/149/ 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1-b) (a), 26, 27 of the Arms Act. In the present application, allegation has been made against the petitioner of assaulting and using the fire arms with intention to kill the informant side.

Submission has been made that there is a case and counter case. The cause for dispute is with regard to the land and it is completely a private dispute, this Court should interfere in the matter.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46767 of 2012 (2) dt.30-04-2015 2/2 The first information report itself shows, volumes of the action of the petitioner and when the Court arrived to a conclusion that strong suspicion is made out against the petitioner on the basis of material available on record, this Court should not interfere in the matter.

This Court does not find any error in the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. As the case is of 2002, the court below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U T