Manish Kumar And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10749 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -24 Year- 2013 Thana -PHENHARA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Manish Kumar, s/o Mahesh Prasad Singh, resident of village- Vyapur, Police Station- Maner, District- Patna at present posted on the post of Assistant Engineer, Bihar Education Project at Arwal.

2. Lakshman Ram, s/o Hari Bhajan Ram, resident of village- Khilaphatpur, Police Station- Buxar Muffasil, District- Buxar, at present posted on the post of Junior Engineer, Bihar Education Project, at Arwal

3. Vijay Kumar Rajak, s/o Lootan Rajak, resident of village- Safiabad, Police Station- Naya Ramnagar, District- Munger, at present posted on the post of Executive Engineer, Rural Work Manager, Motihari, East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sri Narad Kumar Dwivedi, s/o late Kailash Dubey, the District Programme Officer, Primary Education and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, East Champaran .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J. Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 14-05-2018 1.

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the First Information Report of Phenhara P.S. Case No. 24 of 2013 instituted for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 267, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

Case diary has been received.

3.

From perusal of the case diary it appears that police after completing investigation, submitted charge sheet

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10749 of 2014 (9) dt.14-05-2018 2/2 against the petitioners and other accused persons for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned counsel for the State.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners after some arguments, seeks permission to withdraw the application. 6.

The application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points as raised in this application in the court below either at the stage of framing of charge or at the appropriate stage of trial which will be considered by the Court below in accordance with law.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T