Rajesh Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60997 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2000 Year-2017 Thana- PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPurnia ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar Sah Son of Late Shambhu Prasda Sah, Resident of VillageRanipatara, P.S.- Mufassil Ranipatara, District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

2.

The State Of Bihar Ajay Kumar Sah, son of late Shambhu Prasad Sah, 3.

Sunita Devi, Wife of Sri Ajay Kumar Sah, 4.

Suman Anand @ Guddu, Son of Sri Ajay Kumar Sah, 5.

Khushbu Devi, Wife of Sri Suman Anand @ Guddu, All resident of Village- Ranipatara, P.S.- Mufassil Ranipatara, DistrictPurnea. 6.

Piku Bharti, Wife of Sri Rajesh Kumar Ray, 7.

Rajesh Kumar Ray, Son of Late Keshav Ray, Both resident of VillageKasba, P.S.- Kasba, District- Purnea. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amit Kumar Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 05-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners, in the present case, are seeking quashing of the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea in Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2018/CIS No. 86 of 2018 and also quashing of order dated 04.05.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in connection with Complaint Case No. 2000 of 2017 under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 448, 427, 380, 504, 506 and 34

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60997 of 2018(2) dt.05-12-2019 2/2 of the I.P.C.

There being no perversity in the impugned order, this court sitting under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not interfere with the concurrent order of the learned Magistrate who was not satisfied with the materials on the record and has dismissed the complaint and the learned District & Sessions Judge, Purnea has also refused to interfere with the same in revision. The scope of examination of the revisional order being limited under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this court finds no reason to interfere with the same. This application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T