Rajeev Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No 30725 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1854 Year- 2012 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA =========================================================== Rajeev Kumar Son of Late Ramdeo Sahu, Proprietor, M/S Sah Hardware Store, Kadam Kuan, Patna - 800003 Resident of Village :- Bansal Tower, Dr. B Bhattacharya Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Dist.-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. M/s Berger Paints India Ltd, TPS Compound, Near Sonali Automobile Showroom, Anishabad, P.S. Beur, Town and Dist.-Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Vishal Saurabh, Advocate For Opposite Party No 2 : Mr Sanjiv Sharan, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Vishal Saurabh, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 15-11-2017 Heard counsel for the petitioner, Opposite Party No 2 and the learned APP for the State.
2 This application has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 03.08.2012 and the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No 1854C of 2012.
3 Counsel for Opposite Party No 2 has brought to the notice of the Court that by order dated 12.07.2013, the Court below had framed charges against the accused persons. He has produced the certified copy of the said order of the Court below which is being kept on record. It may be noted that while filing the quashing application
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30725 of 2014 dt.15-11-2017 2/2 in the year 2014, this fact of the charges having been framed in the year, 2013 has not been brought on record. By suppressing the said order, the petitioner has also obtained a stay of further proceedings in the complaint case vide order dated 17.07.2015 passed in the instant case. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner does not entitle him to claim relief in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, Cr P C). 4 Coming to the allegations in the complaint petition, bare perusal of paragraph 10 discloses that the allegations have been made giving the essential ingredients for taking of cognizance for the offences under Sections 406 and 418 of Indian Penal Code and the order taking cognizance does not warrant any interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr P C. 5 This application is dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 16.11.2017 Transmission Date 16.11.2017