Sarvesh Prakash @ Sonu And ANR. v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.18087 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -99 Year- 2015 Thana -ALAMGANJ District- PATNA ======================================================
1. Sarvesh Prakash @ Sonu S/o Jay Prakash Gupta
2. Jay Prakash Gupta, S/o Late Ram Sahai Sah, Both residents of MohallaChailitand, Near Mahavir Temple, Police Station- Alamganj, DistrictPatna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.B.P.Pandey, Sr. Advocate Mr.Nirbhay Prashant, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 19-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.
Petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 28.01.2016 whereby and whereunder the learned lower court took cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 376, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and further, summoned the petitioners.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from plain reading of the written report which happens to be in the pen of the prosecutrix herself did not specify whether the physical relationship having amongst the parties was forcibly
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18087 of 2016 (5) dt.19-10-2016 2/2 consummated or was consummated under deceitful will, hence no offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. is made out. Proper application of section whereunder accused is to prosecuted is to be perceived at the stage of the trial ordinarily. The framing of charge is not at all guided by the order of cognizance. Consequent thereupon, petitioner has nothing to fear that as cognizance has been taken under Section 376 of the I.P.C. along with other allied sections, therefore, the charge in its consequence will also follow. As stated above, both have got two independent application of judicial mind and further, is not at all permitted to overlap.
With the aforesaid observation, instant petition is disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) AnilKrSinha/- U T