Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54034/2013dismissed

Yamuna Devi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-04-27Mr. Justice Sanjay Priya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54034 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- KATIHAR ===========================================================

1. Yamuna Devi, wife of Arjun Ram, R/O Mohalla- Gaushala, Ward No. 40, P.S.- Sahayak, District- Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar,

2. Surti Devi, wife of Ram Bharat Ram, R/O Mohalla- Gaushala, Ward No. 40, P.S.- Sahayak, District- Katihar .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-04-2017

1. This application has been filed for quashing the notice dated 21.10.2011 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Katihar, in Case No.05-M of 2011 instituted under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. From the impugned order, it appears that after initiating proceeding under Section 147 Cr. P. C., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Katihar, has issued notice dated 21.10.2011 to the petitioner to appear and file show cause.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that notice issued to the petitioner is bad in law because it is vague. He has

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54034 of 2013 dt.27-04-2017 2/2 further submitted that no boundary has been mentioned in the notice.

5. From the notice enclosed with the petition, it appears that Mauza, Thana Number, Khata Number, Khesra Number and Rakwa of the land, in dispute, has been mentioned.

6. This Court is of the view that merely because boundary has not been mentioned in the notice, the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 147 Cr. P.C. cannot be said to be improper. After looking into the notice, it appears that the land, in dispute, is identifiable and there is no vagueness in the notice.

7. Accordingly, this quashing application is dismissed.

8. The petitioner may appear before the Court below and file show cause, which shall be considered by the learned Magistrate on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Sanjay Priya, J) J.Alam/- AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 06-05-2017 Transmission Date 06-05-2017