Sheoraj Singh @ Shiv Raj Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2043 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-567 Year-2021 Thana- AURANGABAD COMPLAINT CASE District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Sheoraj Singh @ Shiv Raj Singh Son Of Late Benimadhava Singh Resident Of Village- Dabura Khurd, P.O. And P.S.- Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Aditya Narayan Singh Son Of Late Chandradeo Singh Resident Of VillageDabura Khurd, P.O. And P.S.- Aurangabad (M), District- Aurangabad 3.

Mohan Singh Son Of Late Chandradeo Singh Resident Of Village- Dabura Khurd, P.O. And P.S.- Aurangabad (M), District- Aurangabad 4.

Nand Gopal Kumar Singh Son Of Late Chandradeo Singh Resident Of Village- Dabura Khurd, P.O. And P.S.- Aurangabad (M), DistrictAurangabad 5.

Sachidanand Singh Son Of Late Chandradeo Singh Resident Of VillageDabura Khurd, P.O. And P.S.- Aurangabad (M), District- Aurangabad 6.

Ranvijay Singh Son Of Late Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Narayan Singh Resident Of Village- Dabura Khurd, P.O. And P.S.- Aurangabad (M), District- Aurangabad 7.

Suryadeo Singh Son Of Late Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Narayan Singh Resident Of Village- Dabura Khurd, P.O. And P.S.- Aurangabad (M), District- Aurangabad 8.

Uday Singh Son Of Late Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Narayan Singh Resident Of Village- Dabura Khurd, P.O. And P.S.- Aurangabad (M), DistrictAurangabad 9.

Ajay Singh @ Ajay Kumar Singh Son Of Late Jagdish Singh @ Jagdish Narayan Singh Resident Of Village- Dabura Khurd, P.O. And P.S.- Aurangabad (M), District- Aurangabad 10.

Prashant Kumar Son Of Aditya Narayan Singh Resident Of Village- Dabura Khurd, P.O. And P.S.- Aurangabad (M), District- Aurangabad 11.

Nishant Kumar Son Of Aditya Narayan Singh Resident Of Village- Dabura Khurd, P.O. And P.S.- Aurangabad (M), District- Aurangabad 12.

Upendra Sharma Son Of Late Madhusudan Singh Resident Of VillageGulab Bigha, P.O. And P.S.- Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad 13.

Kameshwar Singh Son Of Jagdeep Singh Resident Of Mohalla- Anugrah Nagar (Infront Of S.N. Sinha College) Aurangabad, P.O. And P.S.- Aurangabad (M), District- Aurangabad ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2043 of 2024(2) dt.20-01-2025 2/3 For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh,Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-01-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present quashing petition preferred against order dated 03.02.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 567 of 2021 passed by learned ACJM, II, Aurangabad, whereby and where under the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Section 323 and 504 of the IPC and failed to took cognizance for the offence Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

3. The aforesaid order was challenged in Cr. Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad through Cr. Rev. No. 39 of 2023 but same was also stands dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2023, being aggrieved with aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred present petition. 4 The crux of submission as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the report of ADM dated 27.08.2021, categorically stated that some manipulation was done in record of Khata No. 38 and despite of the said fact, Court below failed to took cognizance for the offences under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2043 of 2024(2) dt.20-01-2025 3/3 Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. It appears out of submission from learned counsel that dispute related with the factual analysis and moreover, he may raise all such issues before learned trial court itself at the time of explaining accusations .

5. From the perusal of impugned order of learned Sessions Judge dated 26.07.2023, it appears that the said liberty was already granted to petitioner to raise all such issues at the time of explaining accusations but instead of availing said opportunity in terms of revisional order as aforesaid, petitioner approached this Court.

6. Considering aforesaid, there is no substance in the present petition, accordingly, the present quashing petition stands dismissed, however with aforesaid liberty as to raise all such issues at the time of explanation of accusations in terms of impugned revisional order.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Sudha/- U T