← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54721/2015dismissed

Murli Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-30Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54721 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2012 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.

Murli Singh Son of Upendra Singh 2.

Jitendra Kumar Singh @ Jitendra Singh Son of Upendra Singh 3.

Nirdhan Singh, Son of Badri Singh 4.

Sridhan Singh, Son of Badri Singh 5.

Mohan Singh, Son of Late Nathuni Singh 6.

Upendra Singh, Son of Late Nathuni Singh 7.

Ramdahin Singh, Son of Late Nathuni Singh 8.

Kishore Singh, Son of Mohan Singh 9.

Umakant Singh, Son of Ramkhelawan Singh, All of Village- Jhakargarh, P.S.- Cjatapur, District- Supaul.

10.

Raj Kumar Singh, Son of Subelal Singh of Village- Bhimpur, P.S.- Bhimpur, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-08-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for quahsment of order of cognizance dated 16.11.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in Chatapur P.S. Case No. 171 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 1347 of 2012 as well as against revisional court's order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Supaul in Cr. Revision No. 12 of 2014 whereby the learned revisional court refused to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54721 of 2015(2) dt.30-08-2023 2/2 interfere with the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, very fairly submits that after filing of this application charges were framed and thus the trial has commenced.

4. In view of the fact that trial has commenced, the Court is not inclined to entertain this application.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T