Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18466/2014dismissed

Avinash Kumar Singh @ Avinash Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-09-08Mr. Justice Arun Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18466 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -44 Year- 2013 Thana -ATHMALGOLA District- PATNA =========================================================== Avinash Kumar Singh @ Avinash Kumar Son of Late Shivnandan Singh Resident of Tola Babu Mohan Singh, P.S- Athmalgola, Distt- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Om Shankar Kumar @ Poly Singh Son of Late Raghubansh Prasad Singh resident of Tola Babu Mohan Singh, P.S- Athmalgola, Distt- Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar-1, APP For O.P. No.2 :

Mr. Tej Narayan Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2

2. This application has been filed for quashing order dated 01.04.2014, passed by A.C.J.M., Barh in Athmalgola P.S. Case No.44 of 2013 whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. A short fact, as stated in the fardbeyan of the informant, is that when the informant was going to his shop and reached in front of the house of the petitioner, all accused persons including the petitioner variously armed surrounded him and assaulted with sword and this petitioner is alleged to have assaulted with butt of the pistol and also snatched away his golden chain.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18466 of 2014 dt.08-09-2017 2 /2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and the police not sent him for trial after conclusion of the investigation.

5. Contrary to that, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 submits that there is specific allegation that this petitioner also assaulted the informant with butt of the pistol, number of injuries was caused to the informant and he was referred to the hospital for treatment.

6. Having considered rival submissions and on perusal of the record of the case, there is allegation against the petitioner also, so there is no ground for setting aside the cognizance order.

7. The application stands dismissed.

(Arun Kumar, J.) S.Kumar/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 11.09.2017 Transmission Date 11.09.2017