Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39470/2014dismissed

Beer Bahadur Pandey And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-08-25Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39470 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -439 Year- 2008 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Beer Bahadur Pandey, Son of Late Ramjanam Pandey

2. Daya Shankar Pandey, Son of Late Sheopujan Pandey Both residents of village - Kathuan, Police Station - Kargahar District - Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sudama Tiwari, Son of Late Ramcheej Tiwari, Resident of Village - Saraiyan, Police Station - Kochas, District - Rohtas. At present Resident of Village - Kathuan, Police Station - Kargahar, District- Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kr.Panday (App) For Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 25-08-2017 Despite repeated calls, no one appears on behalf of the petitioners. On the previous day also, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners, let the court is left no option, but to pass final order on hearing the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and on perusal of record.

The petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order dated 06.08.2012 passed by learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas in Complaint Case No. 439 of 2008, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for quashing the order dated 18.01.2013

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39470 of 2014 (4) dt.25-08-2017 2/3 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas in Cr. Revision No. 437 of 2012, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

In order dated 23.08.2017, it was made clear that if no one appears on behalf of the petitioners on 25.08.2017, the Court will look into the record and on consideration of submission of opposite party no.2 and State pass final order. Today, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioners to assist the Court. Counsel for State and opposite party no.2, are present.

Counsel for opposite party no.2 and State oppose the petition saying that this is not a case where the Court should exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., as from the totality of the facts situation, there are materials to proceed against the petitioners and as such the Court should not interfere at this stage to scuttle the trial.

Having heard the counsel for the opposite party no.2 and State and considering the materials available on record, I am of the view that the Court below has not committed any error in exercising the jurisdiction in taking cognizance. This Court is also convinced that the revisional court has also not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39470 of 2014 (4) dt.25-08-2017 3/3 Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, liberty shall be available to the petitioners to make all submissions as would be available under law before the court below at appropriate stage.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Uday/- U T