Sushil Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.39748 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -106 Year- 2011 Thana -BASOPATTI District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Sushil Kumar Pandey , son of Late Mahesh Nr. Pandey, resident of villageGhorbanki, Police Station- Basopatti, District Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Marchhu Ram, son of Late Moti Ram, resident of village-Patauna, Police Station-Paliganj, district- Patna, at present Basopatti, Pashu Chikitshalay, Police Station-Basopatti, District-Madhubani
3. Most. Sumitra Devi, wife of Late Marchhu Ram, resident of villagePatauna, Paliganj, District- Patna, at present-Basopatti, Pashu Chikitalaya, Police Station-Basopatti, District- Madhubani .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-05-2016 Heard Sri Ajay Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, who was assisted by Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 26.08.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No.200/2013 arising out of Basopatti P.S. Case no.106/11 registered for the offence under Sections365, 366(A), 376, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x) (xii) of the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39748 of 2013 (5) dt.16-05-2016 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way referring to the statements of the victim examined under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, submits that the victim has not named the petitioner as an accused, whereas on perusal of the order impugned, the Court is satisfied that there is no apparent error warranting interference.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U