Girdhar Rajwar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar Through C.B.I.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.43505 of 2012 ======================================================
1. Girdhar Rajwar, son of Ashribad Rajwar, resident of village Loto, P.S.- Cilli, District-Ranchi, at present Dudhi Nagar, P.S.-Dudhi Nagar, District-Sone Bhadra (U.P.)
2. Jitendra Kumar Das, son of Govind Lal Das, resident of village-Mimara Uttarbari Tola, P.S.-Simra, District-Madhubani.
3. Hira Devi, wife of late Sabhajeet Tiwari, resident of village-Sripur Pandey Tola, P.S.-Marienna, District-Chapra.
4. Ramashish Pathak, son of late Ram Narayan Pathak, resident of villageAmta, P.S.-Narayan Dahit, District-Darbhanga.
5. Laxman Prasad, son of late Ganesh Prasad, resident of village-Balia, P.S.-Simri, District-Darbhanga.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar through C.B.I.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, SC,CBI ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-04-2015 The petitioners have filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 24.09.2012 passed in Special Case No.21 of 1995 (R.C.No.28(A)/95-Pat.) by the learned Special Judge, CBI-III, Patna, whereby the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge from the criminal prosecution registered for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been rejected by a reasoned and speaking order.
At the very outset, learned SC, CBI appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that, in view of the subsequent developments, the present matter has become infructuous. According to him, after the impugned order dated 24.09.2012,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43505 of 2012 (2) dt.23-04-2015 charges were framed against these petitioners, besides others and as many as five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
In above view of the matter, the present application is dismissed as infructuous.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U T