Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32329/2017dismissed

Vivek Kumar Lath v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-03-20Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32329 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1046 Year- 2015 Thana -PURNIA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPURNIA ======================================================

1. Vivek Kumar Lath, son of Sri Raj Kumar Lath, resident of VillageRanisati Chowk, Kasba, P.S.- Kasba, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Dharmendra Kumar Lath, son of Sri Om Prakash Lath, Both residents of Village- Ranisati Chowk, Kasba, P.S.- Kasba, District- Purnea. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-03-2018 This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed against the order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Complaint Case No. 1046 of 2015 by which the aforesaid complaint has been dismissed in exercise of power conferred under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

If after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of inquiry or investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has dismissed the complaint, the same is in the nature of a final order. A final order passed by the court of Magistrate is revisable under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32329 of 2017 (2) dt.20-03-2018 2/2 Since a revision petition is maintainable against the order impugned, in the opinion of this Court, it would not be proper for this Court to entertain an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

In that view of the matter, this application is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order impugned by way of filing a revision petition. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/- U T