Patna High CourtCR. MISC./46411/2012dismissed

Jagnarayan Mahto And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-04-16Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46411 of 2012 ======================================================

1. Jagnarayan Mahto

2. Shyam Narayan Mahto

3. Uday Mahto All sons of Jhagaru Mahto, resident of Village - Jharha, P.S. Kutumba, District - Aurangabad

4. Shiv Mahto

5. Sukhlal Mahto

6. Dil Keshwar Mahto

7. Sudeshwar Mahto All sons of Mahadeo Mahto resident of Village - Jharha, P.S. Kutumba, District - Aurangabad

8. Ganesh Mahto

9. Mahesh Mahto Both sons of Dhaneshwar Mahto Both are residents of Village - Jharha, P.S. Kutumba, District - Aurangabad .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Mahendra Ram, son of Ram Autar Ram, resident of Village - Jharha, P.S. Kutumba, District - Aurangabad .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 16-04-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.05.2012/12.09.2012 passed in Kutumba P.S. case no.52 of 2011 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and directed issuance of process against the petitioners.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46411 of 2012 (2) dt.16-04-2015 2/2

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the first information report has been instituted only with a view to cause harassment to the petitioners whereas in fact, the matter arises out of a land dispute between the parties.

4. Be that as it may, a perusal of the impugned order dated 30.05.2012/12.09.2012 discloses that a prima facie case has been found against the petitioners having regard to the accusations in the FIR and the materials available on record.

5. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.

6. The petitioners will be at liberty to raise all points before the court below at the appropriate stage. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- U T