Patna High CourtCR. MISC./44737/2014dismissed

Umesh Chandra Singh @ Umesh Chandra Singh Yadav And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-09-08Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.44737 of 2014 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-755 Year-2012 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictRohtas ====================================================== 1.

Umesh Chandra Singh alias Umesh Chandra Singh Yadav, Son of Late Jawaheer Singh 2.

Arvind Kumar 3.

Anuj Kumar alias Anuj Kumar Yadav 4.

Atul Kumar No. 2 to 4 all sons of Umesh Chandra Singh All residents of village - Kochas, P.O. - Kochas, Police Station - Kochas, District - Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar.

Laldhari Singh Son of Late Ram Naresh Singh, Resident of Village - Khairahi, P.S. - Dinara, District - Rohtas. At present Resident of Village - Kochas, P.O. - Kochas, P.S. Kochas, District - Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-09-2017 Heard Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Four petitioners have approached this Court , invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-IV, Sasaram, Rohtas in Cr.Revision No.61 of 2013. The criminal revision was preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44737 of 2014(2) dt.08-09-2017 2/2 Sasaram, Rohtas in Complaint Case No.755 of 2012. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 323, 504, 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

Considering the fact that the order of cognizance was challenged by the petitioners in criminal revision, which was rejected, the present petition, which has been filed in the garb of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , amounts to second revision, which is barred under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides other material, I do not find any ground to interfere with. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) nawalkrs/- U T