Petitioners sought restoration of their earlier application questioning an order taking cognizance. The High Court, noting that charges had been framed and the application was filed three years later, rejected it as it was not meritorious.
The application seeking restoration was rejected.
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.26002 of 2014
====================================================== 1. Aruna Devi W/o Binod Kumar Resident of village- Maya Bigha, P.S.Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad 2. Runa Devi Wife of Santosh Choudhary 3. Ranju Devi Wife of Shashi Choudhary Both are Resident of villageBandaya, Panchayat Salhanda, P.S.- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 3 02-07-2014 Heard Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma for the petitioners and Mr. A.A. Khan, APP for the State.
By filing the present application the petitioners sought restoration of Cr. Misc. No. 51007 of 2012 which was filed questioning the legality of the order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad whereby cognizance of the case/offence arising out of Makhdumpur P.S. Case No.352 of 2011 was taken.
On query, counsel for the petitioners fairly states that stage has now reached where the learned court below has framed charges against the petitioners.
The application stood dismissed in January, 2013 whereas the present application has been filed in June, 2014. The grounds stated therein do not convince this Court to allow this
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26002 of 2014 (3) dt.02-07-2014
2 / 2
application.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners, if so advised, shall challenge the order passed by the court below framing charges against the petitioners.
Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not satisfied that present application merits to be allowed. It is accordingly rejected.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)
HR/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for restoration of the earlier writ petition questioning the taking of cognizance merits to be allowed considering the delay and framing of charges.
Aruna Devi W/o Binod Kumar
Runa Devi
Ranju Devi
The State of Bihar
Kishore Kumar Mandal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
