Gulab Chandra Keshri v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34070 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2018 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMunger ====================================================== 1.

GULAB CHANDRA KESHRI Son of Late Parasnath Prasad Resident of village - Near Netro Dame Academy, Nayagaon Albartroad, P.S. - Jamalpur, Distt. - Munger 2.

Ritalal Keshari @ Ritalal Wife of Gulab Chandra Keshri Resident of village - Near Netro Dame Academy, Nayagaon Albartroad, P.S. - Jamalpur, Distt. - Munger 3.

Kishan Lal @ Kishanlal Sharma Son of Govind Prasad Sharma Resident of village - Ward no. 13, Albart Road, East Colony, P.S. - Jamalpur, Distt. - Munger 4.

Latori Mandal Son of Uchit Mandal Resident of village - Bari Dariyapur, P.S. - Jamalpur, Dist - Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR Bihar 2.

Additional Judge 1st Cum- Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Munger Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Samir Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umanath Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the order dated 7.3.2018 by which the C.J.M., Munger has taken cognizance against the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 28C2 of 2018.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant of East Colony P.S. Case No. 42 of 2017 has settled the dispute, and therefore, the Final Form

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34070 of 2023(2) dt.19-05-2023 2/2 was submitted in that case and the same was accepted by order dated 27.02.2018. He further submits that the present prosecution has been launched on the basis of an application filed by the informant in East Colony P.S. Case No. 42 of 2017. He further submits that the petitioner no. 2 is a scientist, employed in the government organization and petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are the bailors. He further submits that the petitioners had no role in furnishing any forged and fabricated receipt as it is their lawyer who had done everything and had not said that the documents which were being furnished were forged.

4. Considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the parties in the original F.I.R. and no purpose will be served in prosecuting the petitioners who is a scientist employed in the government organization, this application is allowed.

5. Accordingly, the prosecution of all the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 28C2/2018 is hereby quashed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Guddu/- U T