Disposed

Vakil Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar through Director General Cum Inspector General of Police, Patna and Ors.

Patna HC2 Aug 2013CR. WJC/303/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposal of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The High Court, noting non-prosecution in prior proceedings, held that the petitioner could raise objections regarding service of papers and lack of sanction before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner at liberty to raise points regarding service of papers and sanction before the trial court. Writ application disposed of accordingly.

Vakil Prasad Singh Vs the State of Bihar through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.303 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Vakil Prasad Singh, Son of Late Prabhu Narain Singh, resident of VillageKujji, P.S.- Darbhanga Sadar, District- Darbhanga.

¶3

.... .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Patna.

¶5

The Additional Director General of Police, Cabinet Vigilance, Bihar, Patna.

¶6

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cabinet Vigilance Department, Electricity Board Cell, Patna.

¶7

The Inspector, Criminal Investigation Department, Special Cell, Vigilance, Electricity Board, Patna.

¶8

.... .... Respondents

¶9

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL ORDER

¶10

5 02-08-2013 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the

¶11

parties.

¶12

This is an application seeking quashing of First Information Report of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 17 of 1998 corresponding to Special Case No. 15 of 2002 / 13 of 1998.

¶13

It is undisputed that earlier the petitioner had preferred Cr. Misc. No. 1743 of 2010 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the order dated 24.04.2002 taking cognizance in the said case, but it was

¶14

dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 19^th August, 2010.

¶15

It is also pointed out that neither any police paper is served upon the petitioner nor his income from ancestral properties and G.P.F loan taken has been taken into consideration

¶16

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.303 of 2013 (5) dt.02-08-2013

¶17

¶18

nor there is sanction for observation by competent authority, but at the same time, the petitioner has remedy available before the court below itself at appropriate stage since cognizance has already been taken, it may be the stage of hearing for commencement of the trial.

¶19

Hence, the petitioner, if so wishes, is at liberty to raise all such points before the court below which may be considered in accordance with law.

¶20

Accordingly, with the above modification, this writ application stands disposed of.

¶21

(Akhilesh Chandra, J)

¶22

Praveen-II/-

Vakil Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar through Director General Cum Inspector General of Police, Patna and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakil Prasad Singh v. the State of Bihar through Director General Cum Inspector General of Police, Patna and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Singh @ Anil Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shahwaj Alam @ Bablu and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar Through Superintendent Of Police, Bhagalpur and Ors.

Shailesh Yadav Vs State of Bihar

Biso Choudhary and Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Priyanka Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Home Department, Government Of Bihar and Ors.

Hiralal Mahto Vs the Union of India