Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8874/2017dismissed

Prince Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-10-30Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8874 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -352 Year- 2016 Thana -VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictVAISHALI (HAJIPUR) =========================================================== Prince Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Birendra Prasad Singh, Resident of VillageBishanpur Beri, P.S.- Mohiddi Nagar, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Ram Naresh Singh, Son of Late Ram Bilash Singh.

3. Manju Devi, Wife of Ram Naresh Singh.

4. Prabha Kumari, Daughter of Ram Naresh Singh.

5. Amarjeet Kumar @ Pappu, Son of Ram Naresh Singh.

6. Raju Kumar, Son of Ram Naresh Singh.

All Sl. No. 2 to 6 are resident of Village-Birpur, P.S.- Jurawanpur, DistrictVaishali. .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 30-10-2017 By way of present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.12.2016 passed in Cr. Rev. No.312 of 2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali whereby the order dated 20.08.2016 passed by the learned Magistrate in Complaint Case No.352 of 2016 by which bailable warrant of arrest had been issued against the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the learned Magistrate to pass order afresh.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8874 of 2017 dt.30-10-2017 and perused the record.

3. The learned Magistrate had passed the order dated 18.06.2016 in three parts. The first two parts were not signed and in the 3rd part, which has been signed, he has directed for issuance of summons to the opposite parties. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.08.2016 he has directed for issuance of bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge vide his impugned order dated 22.12.2016 has recorded that since the first two parts of the order dated 18.06.2016 were not signed by the learned Magistrate, the 3rd part of the order cannot be justified and, for the same reason, the subsequent order dated 20.08.2016 passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be justified. Hence, while setting aside the aforesaid orders, he has remanded the matter back to the court of Magistrate for passing fresh order.

4. I see no illegality in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

5. Accordingly, the application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Sanjeet/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 03.11.2017 Transmission Date 03.11.2017