Dismissed

Pramod Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC14 Mar 2013CR. MISC./39774/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous application seeking revision against an order directing parties to place documentary evidence under Section 147 CrPC, holding that such interlocutory orders do not warrant interference at that stage.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 CrPC seeking revision against the order impugned was dismissed.

Pramod Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39774 of 2011

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Pramod Kumar Gupta, Son Of Sri Gugan Ram Agrawal 2. Raghubir Gupta, S/o Late Bishwanath Gupta Both residents Of "Phooltas", Mourya Motors (East), Mauja- Simli Murarpur, P.S. Didarganj, Patna City District Patna

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar

¶7

The District Magistrate, Patna

¶8

The Sub- Divsional Magistrate, Patna City District Patna 4. Leelawati Devi Wife Of Sri Ram Lal Yadav Resident Of Shahdara, P.S. Malsalami, District - Patna

¶9

.... .... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 2 14-03-2013 Heard Mr. Sajal Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the State.

¶11

This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks to question an order dated 23.08.2011, whereby the parties to the proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been directed to place documentary evidence and other papers in support of their respective claims. The only ground raised by the petitioner is that this matter had already been adjudicated upon by the respondent no.-3, the S.D.M., Patna City, in Case No. 204 of 2011 and thus the continuation of the proceeding is an abuse of the process of Court in view of the order passed in the earlier case. The application filed by the applicant-opposite party no.-4 is a part of Annexure-3 and an allegation of

¶12

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39774 of 2011 (2) dt.14-03-2013

¶13

¶14

collusion between the parties, in the earlier round of litigation has been made. It is the case of the first party that the nature of the land is a public land and the petitioners are trying to encroach upon the same. The order impugned being interlocutory in nature requiring the parties to file their documents does not warrant interference at this stage.

¶15

This application is dismissed.

¶16

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶17

P.K./-

Pramod Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby Devi and Anr. Vs Kunti Devi

Ram Udgar Sharma Vs Kameshwari Priya Poor Home

Rabindra Kumar Chaudhary and Anr. Vs Shri Narendra Kumar Chaudhary

Dhuri Gope and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar

Vishnu Kumar Sharma Vs Sarojani Devi

Bharat Rai Vs Uma Raman Das and Ors.