Patna High CourtCR. MISC./63658/2017dismissed

Rashmi Rani v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2023-12-19Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63658 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1428 Year-2014 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== Rashmi Rani W/o Sudhir Singh, R/o Village - Painal P.S. Bihta District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Sai Construction through its Proprietor, Suraj Prakash Singh, S/o Late Satya Prakash Singh, R/o Mohalla Sakchi 9 Number Bagan Beside RTC, Kalimati Road Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-12-2023

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

2. The Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 20.07.2017 which requires interference as the learned Magistrate while dismissing the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. assigned reason that the petitioner is a resident of Patna and is not a Pardanashin lady but at times in connection with her work she goes out of Patna also as such her application seeking exemption from appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at para 10 of her application filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. a categoric statement was made that petitioner along with her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63658 of 2017(2) dt.19-12-2023 2/2 husband is residing at Mumbai, but the said fact was not taken into consideration while rejecting her application under Section 205 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned A.P.P. rebuts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the address of the petitioner given in the quashing application is of Patna and the application filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. also does not record the address of the petitioner where she stays in Mumbai which amply demonstrates that there is no infirmity in the order impugned.

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

6. Hence, the quashing application stands dismissed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T