Harihar Prasad And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.41045 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -6 Year- 2011 Thana -SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSAMASTIPUR ===========================================================
1. Harihar Prasad, Son of Late Mojelal Mahto
2. Ajay Kumar Choudhary @ Pappujee, Son of Late Jai Mangal Choudhary Both Resident of Mohalla - Barah Pathar, Ward no. 15, Police Station - Samastipur Town, District - Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Suresh Rai, son of late Awdhi Rai, resident of village-Vikrampur Bandey, P.S.- Muffasil, District-Samastipur.
.... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party no.1: Mr. Satyavrat Verma, APP For the Opposite Party no.2: Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2. The petitioners, in the present case, are seeking quashing of the order dated 24.10.2011 passed by the learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in Complaint Case No.6 of 2011 (arising out of T.R.No.6181 of 2014) by which he has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 406 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and decided to issue summons against the accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41045 of 2014 dt.09-10-2017 present case is nothing but a mala fide prosecution of the complainant and whole story as made out in the complaint petition is concocted and baseless. Learned counsel submits that there is no evidence much less the medical report showing that there is any such injury as alleged by the complainant that too caused by present petitioners. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction may quash the order taking cognizance.
On the other hand, learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2 as well as learned APP representing the State submit that in fact a bare perusal of the complaint petition would show that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. They further submit that there are depositions of the enquiry witnesses on the record who have supported the case of the complainant and only after perusal of materials on record the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and decided to issue summons against the petitioners. It is thus their submission that the order taking cognizance need not be interfered with.
Having perused the materials available on the record and upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order taking cognizance cannot be said to be bad in view of the allegations made in the complaint petition supported by the enquiry witnesses. This Court, therefore, refuses to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41045 of 2014 dt.09-10-2017 interfere with the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons against the petitioners.
The petitioners, if so advised, may raise all such pleas which are available to them at the time of framing of charge where the learned court below shall consider the materials available on the record to find out whether it is a fit case for framing of charge or not. The application stands disposed off with the observations and directions made above.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 10.10.2017 Transmission Date 10.10.2017