Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35467/2013dismissed

Sheshnath Chourasia v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-05-12Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.35467 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -953 Year- 2009 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Sheshnath Chourasia , son of Late Jaganram Chourasia, resident of mohalla Kabirganj Dharamshala Road P.S. Sasaram Nagar, District Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ajay Kumar Singh son of Rishikesh Singh, resident of village Manikpur , P.S. Indrapuri District Rohtas .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Ray For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar 2 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner The sole petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed for quashing of an order dated 29.5.2013 passed in Sasaram (Town) P.S. Case 953 of 2009, G.R. Case No. 2827 of 2009 / Tr. No. 2348 of 2013. By the said order the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition for discharge under section 239 of the Cr.P.C.

Petitioner is F.I.R. named accused for the offence under section 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Police after investigation submitted charge sheet. Thereafter cognizance order was passed. At the stage of charge petition was filed for discharge on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35467 of 2013 (2) dt.12-05-2016 2/2 petitioner submits that of -course in the F.I.R. it was alleged that thousands of people were allegedly cheated by the petitioner none of the witnesses have turned up to support the prosecution whereas on going through the impugned order it is evident that the learned Magistrate while rejecting the discharge petition had considered each and every thing and referring number of paragraphs of the case diary has rejected the discharge petition. Apparently there is no error warranting interference with the impugned order.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T