Quashed

Satrudhan Singh and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC5 Nov 2014CR. MISC./27909/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court quashed an order of cognizance under Section 188 IPC. The court held that cognizance could not be taken for acts committed during pendency of Section 144 proceedings before a specific prohibitory order was issued by a Magistrate in Saran District.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing the order of cognizance under Section 188 IPC stands allowed and the impugned order is quashed.

Satrudhan Singh and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27909 of 2012

¶3

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

¶4

Satrudhan Singh S/O Late Bindeshwar Singh R/O Village - Mahamda, P.S. Garkha, District - Saran ( Chapra )

¶5

Nawal Kishore Singh S/O Late Bindeshwar Singh R/O Village - Mahamda, P.S. Garkha, District - Saran ( Chapra )

¶6

Rajendra Singh S/O Late Bindeshwar Singh R/O Village - Mahamda, P.S. Garkha, District - Saran ( Chapra )

¶7

Ranjit Singh S/O Sukhdeo Singh R/O Village - Mahamda, P.S. Garkha, District - Saran ( Chapra )

¶8

Deonath Singh S/O Late Punit Singh R/O Village - Pirona, P.S. Garkha, District - Saran ( Chapra ) .... .... Petitioner/s

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State Of Bihar

¶11

Deo Suraj Singh S/O Late Kuldip Singh R/O Village - Mahamda, P.S. Garkha, District - Saran ( Chapra )

¶12

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

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Rai For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renu Kumari (App)

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶16

3 05-11-2014 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the

¶17

petitioners, Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the Opposite party No. 2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay for the State. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the order

¶18

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27909 of 2012 (3) dt.05-11-2014

¶19

2/3

¶20

dated 24.12.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in connection with C.G.S. No. 161 of 2011 whereby cognizance has been taken under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated at the instance of the opposite party no. 2. On 05.06.2009, the learned S.D.M. passed prohibitory orders against the petitioners, who were the second party in the 144 proceedings. The petitioners challenged such order in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Saran but the same was dismissed on the ground that the prohibitory order had lost its force after the expiry of sixty days. However, a complaint was filed by opposite party no. 2 on 14.05.2009 with respect to occurrence dated 13.05.2009 wherein it was alleged that the petitioners had full knowledge of such a 144 proceedings having been initiated over the disputed plot of land and despite such knowledge, before any orders could be passed, some construction was made over the plot of land. This complaint was acted upon in the year, 2011 and thereafter, vide order dated 24.12.2011 cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the absence of any prohibitory order by the learned Magistrate during

¶23

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27909 of 2012 (3) dt.05-11-2014

¶24

3/3

¶25

the pendency of the Section 144 proceeding, no cognizance could have been taken under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code provides for disobedience to any order duly promulgated by a public servant. Mere pendency of a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. would not make the petitioners liable for any act which was in derogation to some prohibitory order having been passed, later than the day on which the offence is said to have been committed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, however, contends that since the proceeding had already been initiated, therefore, such an action on the part of the petitioners was culpable as it was for the purposes of creating evidence in their favour. Such a submission has only been noted to be rejected.

¶27

The order taking cognizance is absolutely devoid of merit and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same is quashed.

¶28

The application stands allowed.

¶29

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶30

Jagdish/-

¶31

U T

Satrudhan Singh and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satrudhan Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sona Lal Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Geeta Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Shankar Sao Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Uma Shankar Bhagat and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Prakash Kumar Roy @ Prakash Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Kamal Narain Das Vs State of Bihar