← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14569/2018dismissed

Nathuni Mahadeva @ Nathuni Mangaradita And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2019-08-23Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14569 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2015 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

Nathuni Mahadeva @ Nathuni Mangaradita son of Late Bholtan Mahadeva. 2.

Indra Kumar Mahadeva, son of Late Bholtan Mahadeva. 3.

Surendra Mahadeva, son of Late Ram Chandra Mahadeva. 4.

Risal Devi, wife of Nathuni Mahadeva @ Nathuni Mangaradita. 5.

Kamlesh Mahadeva, son of Nathuni Mahadeva.

6.

Shailendra Mahadeva @ Shailendra Kumar Mangardaita, son of Nathuni Mahadeva, All residents of Village- Chaturbuja Piprahi Tola, P.S.- Laukha, District- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rina Devi, wife of Shiv Shankar Das, resident of Village- Chaturbuja Piprahi Tola, P.S.- Laukha, District- Madhubani. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Ahmad Ali ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-08-2019 The petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No. 62 of 2015 whereby the petition preferred on behalf of the petitioners for discharge for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 379, 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14569 of 2018(2) dt.23-08-2019 2/2 After the rejection of the prayer for discharge, charges have been framed against the petitioners and three witnesses have already been examined.

In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order refusing to discharge the petitioners. The petitioners would be at liberty to contest the trial and the Trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings without any delay.

The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Shageer/- U T