Durga Sao v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.33218 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -121 Year- 2010 Thana -MASAURHI District- PATNA =========================================================== Durga Sao son of Late Bilas Sao Resident Of Village And Post Office Chhata, Police Station Masaurhi, District Patna, At Present Residing At Mohalla New Etwarpur, Police Station Parsa Bazar, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar , A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-05-2016 Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sri Madan Kumar, learned A.P.P. The sole petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 15.11.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Masaurhi, in connection with Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 121 of 2010 registered for the offence under sections 435, 427, 34 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. No. 267 of 2010, Tr. No. 821 of 2011.
Short fact of the case is that petitioner was made an accused in the aforesaid case and police after investigation submitted charge sheet. After completion of the provisions contained in section
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33218 of 2013 dt.09-05-2016 2/3 207 of the Cr.P.C. the case was fixed for charge and thereafter vide order dated 15.11.2010 charges were framed against the accused persons. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that till date one or two witnesses have already been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order submits that the order impugned is contrary to the provisions contained in section 240 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that without recording any material or consideration, the impugned order was passed. Assailing the impugned order he submits that in such situation the order is required to be set aside.
He has placed reliance on number of judgments of this court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court particularly 1997 (1) PLJR 466 Sunil Kumar Jha @ Bittu Jha and others vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 545 Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC 49 LALU PRASAD ALIAS LALU PRASAD YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CBI (AHD) PATNA and 2010 (2) Cri. LJ 1753 (Vijay Kumar Agarwal v. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal). He submits that in view non- consideration, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
Without going into detail, considering the fact that the order impugned whereby charge was framed in the year 2010 and petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition in the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33218 of 2013 dt.09-05-2016 3/3 month of August 2013 after commencement of trial, the court is of the opinion that it is not required to examine the impugned order. Moreover, trial has already commenced and as accepted, till date one or two witnesses have been examined. Keeping in view the fact that in the case charge was framed in the year 2010 and as submitted, till date only one or two witnesses have been examined, while dismissing the present petition it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that, the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police for rendering full co-operation to the trial court.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 13-05-2016 Transmission Date 13-05-2016