Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8124 of 2021 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51965 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2015 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR, S/o Dr. Ranjeet Kumar Resident of Village- Karihon, Post Office- Bishnupura Behia, P.S.- Mahua, Distt- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dinesh Maharaj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-02-2021 Heard Mr. Shrawan Kumar Singh, learned senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, learned APP for the State.

The present petition has been filed for modification of the order dated 04.09.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 51965 of 2015.

Cr. Misc. No. 51965 of 2015 was listed on

2/4 04.09.2020. The application was for quashing of F.I.R. of Shikarpur P. S. Case No. 22 of 2015, dated 11.01.2015, which was instituted for the offences under Section 294, 354(D), 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 67 and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

This Court, on taking note of the fact that the case was lodged in the year 2015, came to the view that investigation in that case must have been completed. Since the application was for quashing of the F.I.R., this Court directed that if at all the investigation is still incomplete, the same ought to be completed within a period of three months.

Mr. Shrawan Kumar, learned senior Advocate has pointed out that on the day when this petition was disposed off, I. A. No. 01 of 2019 was already on record, intimating that the police, after investigation, has submitted charge-sheet and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance in the case in a

3/4 mechanical manner vide his order dated 27.04.2016, without any reference to the material in the investigation. A prayer therefore was made in the aforesaid Interlocutory Application for permitting the petitioner to challenge the order of cognizance as well. Though this Court on the insistence of the learned senior Advocate has gone through the chargesheet and is not inclined to interfere in the matter, but it would only be appropriate that no further discussion is made with respect to the merits of the case in appreciating the order of cognizance.

The petitioner will have ample opportunity to challenge the order of cognizance, if he so desires. No good ground has been made out for modifying the order passed by this Court on 04.09.2020.

The prayer for modification is rejected.

However, the petitioner under the circumstances would be at liberty to avail of his

4/4 remedies under the law for challenging the order of cognizance, if the stage of the case has not already progressed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) skm/- U T