Ashok Mehta @ Ashok Prasad Mehta And ANR. v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 28859 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1220 Year- 2012 Thana -KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictKATIHAR ======================================================
1. Ashok Mehta @ Ashok Prasad Mehta S/O Late Jagdish Prasad Mehta Resident of Muradpur Kursela, Police Station- Kursela, District- Katihar
2. Rahul Amin @ Ruhul Amin S/O Late Altaf Hussain Resident of Village and Police Station- Kursela, District- Katihar .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Satyendra Narayan Singh S/O Late Baidyanath Singh Resident of Mehar Tola, Koskipur, Police Station- Kursela, District- Katihar .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Pd.Nut (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4.
29-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Prasad Nut, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Two petitioners, who are Halka Karamchari and Anchal Amin respectively, have approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), with a prayer to quash an order dated 27-05-2013 passed by Sri R.M.Tripathi, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 1220 of 2012. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of both the petitioners.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28859 of 2013 (4) dt.29-04-2016 2/2 Learned counsel for petitioners tried to persuade the Court that petitioners were falsely implicated by the complainant, however; he was not in a position to satisfy the Court about any apparent error in the order impugned warranting interference. Besides hearing, I have also examined the material on record, particularly; the impugned order, which succinctly assigns reasons for rejecting the discharge petition. I do not find any ground for interference.
The petition stands dismissed.
Keeping in view the fact that discharge petition was rejected in the year 2013, while dismissing the present petition, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T