Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50138/2017dismissed

Rajiv Kumar Ambashta @ Rajiv Kumar Ambast v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2023-11-29Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50138 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-329 Year-2014 Thana- FALKA District- Katihar ====================================================== Rajiv Kumar Ambashta @ Rajiv Kumar Ambast, S/o Kapileshwar Prasad Ambashta, R/o village-Babhani, P.O.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jeetendra Narayan- Advocate Mr. Amit Narayan- Advocate For the B.S.F.C.

Mr. Niraj Kumar- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-11-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the B.S.F.C. and learned APP for the State.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already filed an application seeking discharge, but the Court is not acting upon the same. It is further submitted that the present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order of cognizance on the ground that cognizance was taken without obtaining sanction. It is further submitted that till date, sanction has not been given by the competent authority and in absence of sanction, cognizance has been taken.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50138 of 2017(2) dt.29-11-2023 2/2

3. The learned counsel appearing for the B.S.F.C. submits that no doubt, sanction is an integral part of the prosecution, but then, the same can be obtained at any stage as it is not a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the B.S.F.C. that since petitioner has filed an application seeking discharge and the petition is pending, the same can be directed to be disposed off.

4. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the B.S.F.C., the Court is not inclined to entertain the quashing application.

5. Accordingly, the quashing application is rejected.

6. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking discharge.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T