Mithilesh Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar Through Director General, Vigilance, Circular Road, Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48455 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2010 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ====================================================== Mithilesh Kumar Sinha S/o Late Ram Chandra Prasad, R/o VillageMakhdumpur, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar Through Director General, Vigilance, Circular Road, Patna and Ors 2.

The I.G. Vigilance, Patna.

3.

Birendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Chandradeo Singh, R/o Village- Bhawarah Bhaura, P.S.- Nokha, P.O.- Ghoshia, District- Rohtas Sasaram. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, Special PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-11-2023

1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Special P.P. for the Vigilance.

2. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, very fairly submits that charges have been framed, trial has commenced and one witness also has been examined.

3. It is next submitted that the present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap), Patna in Special Case No. 19 of 2010 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 27 of 2010 whereby application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48455 of 2017(2) dt.23-11-2023 2/2 discharge has been rejected.

4. The learned Special P.P. for the Vigilance opposes the quashing application and submits that since charge have been framed, trial has commenced and one witness has been examined, as such, the Court at this stage should be reluctant in interfering with the order by which discharge application of the petitioner has been rejected.

5. Considering the submission made by the learned Special P.P. for the Vigilance, the Court is not inclined to entertain the quashing application.

6. Accordingly, the present quashing application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T