Md. Salim Ansari v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24967 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -14 Year- 2012 Thana -BELA District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== Md. Salim Ansari, son of Liyakat Ansari, resident of village- Manpaur Islampur Tola, P.S. Bela, District- Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Most. Amna Khatoon, wife of Late Budhan Mansoori, resident of village- Manpaur, Islampur Tola, P.S. Bela, District- Sitamarhi .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-03-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in Bela P.S. Case no.14/2012 corresponding to G.R. No.407/12. By the said order , the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after receipt of the chargesheet, in which accused persons including the petitioner were forwarded as accused for the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24967 of 2013 (2) dt.29-03-2016 2/2 the Court that the informant of the present case had initially filed a complaint petition, which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for its investigation and after investigation the police had not found the accusation, as made in the F.I.R. i.e. for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, true. However, the police submitted chargesheet under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the informant/Opp.Party no.2 is habitual in filing cases against the petitioner. He submits that earlier also two cases were filed, in which final report was submitted. However, in the present case, a complaint was filed regarding the offence under Sections 341, 323, 354, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, during investigation offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code was found true and, as such, final report was submitted and only thereafter the learned Magistrate has passed order of cognizance.

On going through the order of cognizance, I do not find any apparent error warranting interference. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U