Ajay Kumar Singh @ Ajay Singh v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25382 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1484 Year-2017 Thana- BHOJPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhojpur ====================================================== AJAY KUMAR SINGH @ AJAY SINGH S/o Kauleshwar Singh, R/o Vill.- Sakddi, P.S.- Koilwar, District- Bhojpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State Of Bihar 2.

Chaneshwar Rai S/o Late Dhanlal Rai, R/o Vill.- Songhatta , P.S.- Koilwar , District- Bhojpur.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Bansh Dubey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-01-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present complaint case. It is next submitted that two other cases were also instituted against this petitioner in which notices have been issued. It is thus submitted that in the present case also notices be issued on the O.P. No. 2 as there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the complaint of committing an offence under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC.

3. The learned APP for the State, Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, vehemently rebuts the submission of the learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25382 of 2018(2) dt.23-01-2024 2/2 counsel for the petitioner and submits that the cases in which notices were issued, does not have any parity with the allegation as alleged in the present complaint case, it is further submitted that each case has to be decided based on the allegation alleged in the complaint or an FIR, it is also submitted that the complainant in the present case alleges that his land was sold and suspects the hand of the petitioner in the said transaction. It is next submitted that the O.P. No. 2 herein obtained the sale deed of the land and came to know that even the photographs of the seller and the identifier were different.

4. Considering the submission made by the learned APP for the State, the court is not inclined to entertain the quashing application.

5. Accordingly, the present quashing application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T