Subhendra Singh @ Munna Singh And ANR. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45505 of 2012 ======================================================

1. Subhendra Singh @ Munna Singh, Son of Late D.K. Singh.

2. Smt. Uma Singh, Wife of Subhendra Singh @ Muna Singh. Both residents of Rajapur Road, In front of G.R.D. International High School, P.W.D. Colony, Tehari House, Dehradun, P.O. and P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand, PIN Code- 248 001. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Miss Priyanka Singh, Daughter of Late Hari Narayan Singh, Resident of Flat No. 401, Patliputra Residency, Pink House, Anandpuri, P.O. G.P.O. Patna-800 001, P.S. S.K. Puri, District & Town Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners :

None For the State :

Shri Arun Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-05-2015 None appears on calls.

The petition seeks quashing of order dated 02.05.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 104 (c) of 2011 by which the petitioners were summoned to stand trial for committing offences under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

After having perused the impugned order, what appears is that the learned Magistrate had perused the relevant records produced before him along with the statement of the complainant on S.A. and those of the witnesses examined

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45505 of 2012 (3) dt.21-05-2015 2 / 2 during enquiry and had then proceeded to pass the impugned order pointing out that offences only under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were made out. What this Court finds is that the Magistrate had passed the order only after considering the relevant materials as are required to be considered and there is no need of interference.

The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. (Dharnidhar Jha, J.) Sanjay/- U T