Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51221/2013dismissed

Ram Chandra Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-20Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51221 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -149 Year- 2012 Thana -SAUR BAZAR District- SAHARSA ====================================================== Ram Chandra Sah, Son of Sukhdeo Sah, Resident of Village - Sour Bazar, Police Station - Sour Bazar, District - Saharsa .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar-Ii(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2017 Heard.

This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 06.11.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2013, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa dismissed the aforesaid Criminal Revision of the petitioner and affirmed the cognizance order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa finding prima facie case under Sections 341, 323, 504, 354 and 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sour Bazar P.S. Case No. 149 of 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sour Bazar P.S. Case No. 149 of 2012 was instituted on the basis of the written report of Sajani Devi against five persons named in the F.I.R., including one Chandan without his parentage. The Police on investigation submitted Chargesheet including Chandan Sah @ Ram Chandra Sah, son of Sukhdeo Sah (Petitioner), while in the supervision note Chandan, which was named in the F.I.R. was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51221 of 2013 (4) dt.20-06-2017 2/2 identified as Chandan Sah son of Dipo Sah.

On going through the impugned order, I do not find any illegality amounting to abuse of process of Court for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise his point as raised herein before the trial court at appropriate stage.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T