Sawita Devi @ Mukhiya Sawita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.45587 of 2012 ======================================================

1. Sawita Devi @ Mukhiya Sawita Devi W/O Late Pappu Mandal R/O Village - Naki, P.S. Kharagpur, District - Munger .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. H.A.Khare(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-04-2015 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the State is present.

This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.9.2012 passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Special day Court, Munger in Sessions Case No.556 of 2012 arising out of Haveli Kharagpur P.S. Case No.44 of 2012 by which he has refused to discharge the petitioner from the case.

In the present case allegation has been made that on 4.3.2012 at 5 P.M. the grand father of the informant, namely Dr. Murlidhar Jaiswal was returning home after purchasing some articles from Lochi market. The informant was standing in front of the house of his grand father and suddenly the informant heard sound of firing. When he turned left he

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45587 of 2012 (2) dt.16-04-2015 found that his grand father had received gun shot injuries and two persons were fleeing away towards Naki. One of the person was identified as Babloo Mandal and with the help of local people he was carrying his grand father for treatment but on way he died. It has been alleged that the cause of this incident is election of Mukhiya in which Sawita Devi the present Mukhiya was involved. It has further been alleged that present Mukhiya was involved in several financial irregularities relating to Government scheme against whom the informant's grand father had complained to higher officers which is pending for enquiry.

The petitioner has been named in the First Information Report. There is specific allegation against the petitioner. The court below has recorded that in different paragraph of the case diary the name of the petitioner has surfaced involving in the commission of the crime against the grand father of the informant.

This Court does not find any merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U T