Petitioners challenged the affirmation of cognizance order by the Sessions Judge. The High Court held that interference under Cr.P.C. Sec 482 cannot be based on questions of fact and dismissed the petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16685 of 2014
Arising Out of Complaint Case No.2051 Year- 2012 Thana -SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE District- SITAMARHI
====================================================== 1. Kamal Kumar Das, son of late Chandradeo Das 2. Ashok Das, son of late Chandradeo Das 3. Ram Chandra Singh, son of Sri Tej Narayan Singh Petitioners No. 1 to 3 Resident Of Village- Matiyar Kala, P.S.- Sahiyara, Distt.- Sitamarhi 4. Chandeshwar Mahto S/O Late Binda Mahto Resident Of VillageMatiyar Khurd, P.S.- Sahiyara, Distt.- Sitamarhi
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pd., APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER
State.
The Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 21.1.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No. 127 of 2013 and Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2013 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, by which he has affirmed the order of cognizance passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, in Protest-cum-Complaint Petition No. C1/2051 of 2012, Trial No. 3457 of 2013.
Considering that the Petitioners seek quashing on
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16685 of 2014 (2) dt.14-11-2014
2/2
questions of fact which cannot be gone into at the stage of 482 Cr.
P.C., I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
The application stands dismissed.
(Anjana Prakash, J)
S.Ali/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere on questions of fact at the stage of Criminal Procedure Code Section 482.
Whether the order of issuance of process (affirmation of cognizance) warranted judicial interference under Article 226/227.
Kamal Kumar Das
Ashok Das
Ram Chandra Singh
Chandeshwar Mahto
The State Of Bihar
Jugeshwar Baitha
Anjana Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
