Allowed

Rajeev Kumar and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC13 Nov 2014CR. MISC./12912/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order of cognizance. The finding was that the initial complaint was false, arising from a land dispute with a subjudice partition suit between the parties, corroborated by an Investigating Officer’s final report.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 18.7.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, is set aside.

Rajeev Kumar and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12912 of 2014

¶2

Arising Out of Gaighat P.S. Case No. -35 Year- 2009 Thana -GAYGHAT DistrictMUZAFFARPUR ====================================================== 1. Rajeev Kumar, s/o late Shivjee Mahto 2. Raj Kumar Mahto, S/O Ramanand Mahto Accused No. 1 and 2 of village Narar Asia, P.S. Gaighat, District Muzaffarpur and Accused No. 6 of Mohalla Patna City, P.S. Patna City, Distt. Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Anil Mahto S/O Ganga Mahto Resident of village Jarang Asiya, P.S. Gaighat, District Muzaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mallika Mazumdar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Satyendra Pd., APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 5 13-11-2014 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 18.7.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case No. 35 of 2009 arising out of C1863/Trial 3922 of 2013.

¶3

The case of the Informant is that on 22.2.2009 some unknown persons attempted to kidnap his brother Shambhu Mahto. When he came out, the accused persons fired and his brother was taken away by the accused persons including the

¶4

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12912 of 2014 (5) dt.13-11-2014

¶5

2/2

¶6

Petitioner.

¶7

During investigation, the case was found false because it was found that there was a Partition suit pending between the Parties which were subjudice before the Sub Judge-I, Muzaffarpur, and the I.O. recommended action against the Informant under Section 182/211 Indian Penal Code.

¶8

The case diary was called for to verify the submission of the Petitioners and it is found that indeed Final Report was submitted stating therein that the land dispute had led to the institution of the present case which was completely false.

¶9

Having considered the said submission, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 18.7.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Muzaffarpur, in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case No. 35 of 2009 arising out of C1863/Trial 3922 of 2013, is hereby set aside.

¶10

(Anjana Prakash, J)

¶11

S.Ali/-

¶12

U T

Rajeev Kumar and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Pandit Vs The State Of Bihar

Kunal Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Guddu Jha Vs The State Of Bihar

Sri Umashankar Prasad Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Bir Bahadur Mahto @ Bhikhari Mahto and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Mithilesh Kumari @ Mithilesh Devi @ Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.