High Court Cr.Misc. No.13707 of 2011 disposed of an application for quashing an order taking cognizance against petitioner. The High Court found no error in the order but allowed the petitioners liberty to raise points at charge framing.
Petitioners allowed liberty to raise points at charge framing; application disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13707 of 2011 (2) dt.24-07-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13707 of 2011
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER
From the First Information Report it appears that cousin brother of the informant had gone to his field for irrigation where the accused persons came there and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13707 of 2011 (2) dt.24-07-2012
assaulted him with different weapons and also used fire arms against him. Ultimately his cousin brother succumbed to the injuries.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although there is direct against allegation against petitioner no.2 but all the family members have been made accused. After investigation the police has submitted final form but the court differed with the police report and on the basis of
protest petition the court below has taken cognizance.
This Court does not find any error in the impugned order. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points before the court below at the time of framing of charge.
With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of.
Vinay/-
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there was any error in the impugned order taking cognizance under sections 147, 149, 148, 302 IPC and 27 Arms Act based on the protest petition.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Naresh Singh
Fantus Singh
Buchi Singh
Sajjan Singh
The State Of Bihar
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
