Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30318/2014dismissed

Birendra Pandey And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-11-20Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30318 of 2014 dt.20-11-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30318 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -179 Year- 2013 Thana -SIWAN CITY District- SIWAN ===========================================================

1. Birendra Pandey Son of Late Manger Pandey

2. Bebi Devi Wife of Birendra Pandey Both are Resident of village- Parauli, P.S.- Panchrkhi, District- Siwan, Presently reside at Mohalla- Kasertoli Chauk Bazar Siwan, P.S.- Town Siwan, District- Siwan.

3. Chunnu Mishra Son of Late Satrudhan Mishra

4. Din Bandhu Mishra Son of Late Vidya Sagar Mishra Both are resident of villageTarwa, P.S.- Hasanpura, District- Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Musmat Badami devi Wife of Late Satyadeo Prasad Resident of Mohalla- Chauk Bazar, P.S.- Town Siwan, District- Siwan.

.... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party no.2 : Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Animesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the State Mr. M.N. Jha, A.P.P.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-11-2017 Heard.

2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to quash the order dated 20.02.2014 passed in Siwan Town P.S. Case No. 179 of 2013, whereby the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, took the cognizance of the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30318 of 2014 dt.20-11-2017

3. On going through the impugned order, I find no illegality in the impugned order amounting to abuse of the process of the court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise their defence/points in trial court at the appropriate stage. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date21.11.2017 Transmission Date 21.11.2017