Patna High CourtCR. REV./48/2015dismissed

Manohar Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-03-02Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.48 of 2015 ===============================================================

1. Manohar Ram Son of Late Sukhdev Ram Resident of village - Seotar, P.S. Aatri, District - Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Rajesh Prasad Son of Late Rameshwar Pd.

3. Dolly Devi Daughter of Rajesh Prasad and wife of Ajay Kumar

4. Lovely Kumari Daughter of Rajesh Prasad All residents of House of Late Gurudev Prasad, New Area, P.S. Nagar Thana, Nawada .... .... .... Opposite Parties =============================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jayram Sharma, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pradip Nr. Kumar, APP =============================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-03-2017 The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 14.10.2014 passed in Session Trial No. 186 of 2014 by learned Sessions Judge, Nawada, whereby, he has rejected petition dated 13.10.2014, filed by the informant to take evidence of the chargesheeted witnesses. By another order dated 17.10.2014, learned court below has rejected a petition for issuance of summons under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C against some of the FIR named accused persons. The petitioner has put to challenge both orders in the present application. I have perused the impugned order. The learned court below has recorded that despite issuance of summons, the said

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.48 of 2015 dt.02-03-2017 2/2 witnesses did not turn up and further, the prosecution did not want those witnesses to be examined. I do not find any error in the order dated 13.10.2014. So far as petition for summoning the accused persons under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., is concerned, it appears from the order dated 17.10.2014, that it was the informant who had filed the application. No such application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned trial Court upon considering this aspect and other materials on record has rejected the said application by order dated 17.10.2014. No interference is required with the said orders.

This revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Ranjan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 08.03.2017 Transmission Date 08.03.2017