Krishna Kant Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19168 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3555 Year- 2008 Thana -VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Krishna Kant Kumar, son of Sri Shyam Naraun Thakur, resident of villageJagdishpur, P.O.- Subhai, P.S.- Rajapakar, district- Vaishali, at present 176 P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna-20, P.S.- Kankarbagh, district- Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Lakshmi Kant, son of Sri Rameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of villagePauni Hasanpur, P.S. and District- Vaishali, proprietor of M/S Ganpati Traders, Gopalpur Chowk, P.S.- Vaishali, district- Vaishali. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kr. 2(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-08-2016 Heard Sri Ajay Thakur, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Binod Kumar no.2, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by filing the present petition, which was filed on 28.04.2014, with a prayer to quash an order , which was passed long back on 08.06.2012, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur had explained the accusation against the petitioner under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19168 of 2014 (3) dt.02-08-2016 2/2 Complaint Case no.3555/2008, Tr.No.1435/10.

Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade the Court that the accusation was illegally and incorrectly explained, whereas the Court is of the opinion that the accusation was explained in the year 2012. Meaning thereby that after explaining the accusation, the trial has proceeded and after about two years from the date of explaining the accusation, the present petition was filed.

In view of the fact, particularly the fact that the order was passed two years back, I do not find any ground to entertain the present petition. The petition stands dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U