This High Court oral order dismissed a quashing petition although a wrong certificate was filed, granting the petitioner liberty to challenge the entire impugned order in a pending revision.
Liberty granted to petitioner to challenge the entire order dated 17.05.2011 in Cr. Revision No. 613 of 2011.
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.34379 of 2011 (4) dt.11-04-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.34379 of 2011
====================================================== 1. Rajeev Ranjan Son Of Sri Jagdish Prasad Resident Of Village-And Po. Beur,Via Anishabad,Ps-Phulwari Sharif Now Beur,District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sheo Dayal Prasad Son Of Late Sunder Prasad Resident Of Village-Sakti Nagar Colony,Po-Anisabad,Ps-Phulwari Sharif,District-Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 4 11-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Although, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 but it is pointed out on his behalf that impugned order dated 17.05.2011 has already been challenged by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 613 of 2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner did not controvert the aforesaid submission but contended that by filing this quashing petition, the petitioner has challenged the part of order dated 17.05.2011. He further contended that as a matter of fact, in Cr. Revision No. 613 of 2011, second part of order dated 17.05.2011 has been challenged by the petitioner and so far as present petition is concerned, the petitioner has challenged the first part of order
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34379 of 2011 (4) dt.11-04-2013
dated 17.05.2011. It is also contended by him that petitioner is not challenging the order dated 03.01.2009 by which the cognizance has been taken by the learned trial court in Complaint Case No. 2770 C of 2008.
Although, a wrong certificate has been given in para 2 of this petition by the petitioner but considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, this petition stands dismissed with liberty to petitioner that he may challenge the entire order dated 17.05.2011 passed by M/s. Jyoti Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2770 C of 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 613 of 2011.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)
SHAHZAD/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quashing petition can be dismissed when the petitioner has already challenged a part of the impugned order in a separate revision petition.
Rajeev Ranjan
The State Of Bihar
Sheo Dayal Prasad
Hemant Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
