Patna High CourtMJC/3861/2018dismissed

Surendra Kumar Maharaj @ Surendra Maharaj v. The State Of Bihar

2019-01-24Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3861 of 2018 ======================================================

1. Surendra Kumar Maharaj @ Surendra Maharaj son of Late Syam Sundar Maharaj.

2. Madhav Murari Sharma, son of Surendra Kumar Maharaj @ Surendra Maharaj.

Both residents of village-Mokhtiarpur, P.S. - Bhagwanpur, District - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Bhagalpur.

4. Sri Shiveshwar Shukla, Ex. (Retired) Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger, C/O- Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

5. Superintendent of Police, Begusarai.

6. Sri Manoj Kumar, The Then Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, C/o - Director of Police, Bihar, Patna.

7. Sri Hari Shankar Prasad, Dy. S.P. C/o - S.P., Begusarai.

8. Shree Raj Kishore Singh, C/o Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

9. Sri Sudhisht Mishra, Investigating Officer, Town (Lohianagar) P.S. - Lohianagar, Begusarai.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amresh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 24-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Kapildeo Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner, in course of his argument submits that now the petitioner has already challenged the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons in an appropriate proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is pending consideration before a Bench of this Hon'ble Court.

In the aforesaid view of the matter alone, this Court

Patna High Court MJC No.3861 of 2018(3) dt.24-01-2019 2/2 does not find any reason to entertain this application for modification of the order.

The application is, thus, dismissed but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner which may be advanced in the pending proceeding.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/-vedU