Disposed

Om Prakash Singh @ Om Prakash Sinha v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC22 Apr 2014CR. MISC./38279/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of orders rejecting plaint under Section 311 CrPC to admit a Ladavi Deed. Court directed lower court to mark exhibit for ends of justice as contents were already testified to, disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed retired Magistrate to consider prayer for marking Ladavi Deed No. 2317 of 1915 as exhibit.

Om Prakash Singh @ Om Prakash Sinha Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38279 of 2011

¶3

====================================================== Om Prakash Singh @ Om Prakash Sinha , son of Late Shri Ram Ran Vijay Prasad Sinha, a resident of village - Bhawani Tola, P.S. : Maner, Distt: Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Shri Ram Niwas Rai, s/o Late Musafir Rai 3. Lakhan Rai, s/o Late Daroga Rai 4. Janak Rai, s/o late Randeo Rai 5. Jay Narain Rai, s/o late Kripal Rai 6. Motilala Rai, s/o Ram Iswar Rai 7. Punit Rai, s/o Late Buta Rai 8. Ram Iqbal Rai, s/o Late Jaipal Rai 9. Birju Rai, s/o Late Jaipal Rai Opp. Parties 2 to 9 all residents of village and post: Patila, P.S. Maner, Distt: Patna 10. Ram Dayal Rai, s/o Mukhdeo Rai 11. Radheshyam Rai, s/o late Kariman Rai 12. Mahendra Rai, s/o late Ramjit Rai Opp. Parties from 10 to 12 all resident of village : Bhawani Tola, P.S.: Maner, Dist. : Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 8 22-04-2014 Heard Sri Aditya Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned A.P.P. as well as Sri Ambika Bhagat, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 to 12.

¶4

The petitioner, who is complainant in Complaint Case No. 669(C) of 2005, has approached this court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 21.6.2011

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38279 of 2011 (8) dt.22-04-2014

¶6

2/3

¶7

passed by learned Sessions Judge, Patna, in Cr. Revision No. 144 of 2011. By the said order learned revisional court has rejected the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.1.2011 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, in Complaint Case No. 669(C) of 2005. By order dated 20.1.2011, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has rejected the petition filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner for getting a document i.e. Ladavi Deed No. 2317 of 1915, which was produced for getting the same marked as an exhibit. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that witnesses have already stated in respect of contents disclosed in the said Ladavi, however, due to bona fide mistake, said document could not be got exhibited. He submits that for getting the said document exhibited a petition was filed , which has been rejected by the learned Magistrate and said order has been affirmed by the Revisional Court. He submits that, for the ends of justice, while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this court may direct the court below to mark the document i.e. said Ladavi as an exhibit, since contents of the document has already been disclosed by the witnesses during the evidence.

¶8

Sri Ambika Bhagat, learned counsel for the private

¶9

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38279 of 2011 (8) dt.22-04-2014

¶10

3/3

¶11

opposite parties, has argued that it appears that such petition was filed only with a view to delay the conclusion of the trial and the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the same, which has been affirmed by the Revisional Court.

¶12

After hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the opinion that since in respect of contents of the document, the witnesses have already deposed before the court below, only by way of getting the said Ladavi exhibited, no prejudice will be caused to either of the parties. Accordingly, for the ends of justice, it is desirable to direct the learned Magistrate to consider the prayer of the petitioner in respect of getting the said Ladavi marked as an exhibit.

¶13

With above observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of.

¶14

(Rakesh Kumar, J)

¶15

Praful/-

Om Prakash Singh @ Om Prakash Sinha v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Singh @ Om Prakash Sinha v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Md. Taiyab Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Sohrab Vs the State of Bihar

Kapildeo Prasad and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Jainandra Kumar @ Munna and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Maksood Alam and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Digvijay Mishra Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.