Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51671/2013dismissed

Taiyab Md. Ansari v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-06-29Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51671 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -140 Year- 2008 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ====================================================== Taiyab Md. Ansari, S/O Sri Late Jumrati Miyan Resident Of Soghra Manzil New Millat Colony, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Anjum Ara, W/O Md. Khurshid Ansari Resident Of Qr No.- 133, A.B. Loco Colony, P.S.- Khagaul, District- Patna.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2 and also learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of State.

This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 14.03.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No. 121 of 2012, whereunder the Court of learned Sessions Judge-II, Danapur dismissed the aforesaid Criminal Revision of the accused-petitioner preferred against the order dated 19.10.2011 rejecting the application of the accused-petitioner to discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. arriving at the conclusion that there is sufficient material to frame charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act. On going through the impugned order dated 14.03.2013 passed in Cr. Revision No. 121 of 2012 and also the order dated

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51671 of 2013 (6) dt.29-06-2017 2/2 19.10.2011 passed in Compliant Case No. 140(C) of 2008 making the application of the accused-petitioner for discharge, I do not find any illegality amounting to abuse of process of Court for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise his point as raised herein before the trial court at appropriate stage.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T