Rajeshwar Mandal And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.30515 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -74 Year- 2000 Thana -SUPAUL District- SUPAUL ======================================================

1. Rajeshwar Mandal

2. Ram Narain Mandal @ Ramu Mandal Both sons of late Gular Mandal

3. Subudhi Mandal

4. Baneshwar Mandal Both sons of late Kari Mandal All are Resident Of Village- Dina Andauli, P.S. And District- Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Mogal Mandal son of Late Sheetal Mandal Resident Of Village- Andauli, P.S. And District- Supaul .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Hirdya Pd. Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-05-2016 Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hriday Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. Four petitioners, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 3.6.2013 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge IV , Supaul in Sessions Trial No. 203 of 2011. By the said order the learned court below has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for their discharge. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30515 of 2013 (2) dt.03-05-2016 2/2 that in the F.I.R. the persons who were arrayed as accused were shown as aggressors over the land of the petitioners and in the occurrence specifically F.I.R. was lodged against the aggressors by the informant. However, after some time petitioners' name was implicated in the present case and charge sheet was submitted. On the aforesaid grounds it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Sessions Judge without appreciating the materials available on record has rejected the discharge petition.

Besides hearing, I have also perused the materials available on record. On going through the impugned order it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge while passing order on discharge petition has thoroughly examined the entire case diary and by referring number of paragraphs of the case diary has come to the conclusion that there is case against the accused persons.

I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T