Petitioner sought quashing of an order rejecting application to explain accusation. Court held trial had commenced; disposed of petition without substantive order, granting liberty to raise points before trial court.
None granted. Liberty given to raise points before court during trial.
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.5181 of 2012
====================================================== Dr. Dilip Chaudhary , S/o Late Umesh Chaudhary, resident of Mohalla & P.O. – Lalbagh, P.S. Town & District - Darbhanga .... .... Suspect - Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ms. Meena Chaudhary, W/o Late Shiva Chaudhary, resident of mohalla - Kotwali Chowk, P.S., Town & District - Darbhanga .... ....Complainant - Opposite Party No. 2 ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
5 24-04-2014 Heard Sri Kali Kant Jha, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Manish Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. as well as Sri Krishna Kant Jha, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of complainant/ opposite party no. 2.
In the present petition, petitioner, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 22.11.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, in Complaint Case C.R. No. 1124 of 2008, T.R. No. 574 of 2011. By the said order petition filed on behalf of the petitioner on 11.11.2011 for passing appropriate order holding that there is no sufficient material on record against the petitioner for explaining accusation was rejected.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5181 of 2012 (5) dt.24-04-2014
2/2
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no material on record for explaining accusation against the petitioner, and as such, it has been incorrectly rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
At the very outset, learned counsel for complainant/ opposite party no. 2, informs that in this case accusation has already been explained, and thereafter, five witnesses have been examined and discharged.
In view of the fact that trial has already commenced, it would not be appropriate to pass any positive order. The petition stands disposed of. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all the points, which have been raised in the present petition before the court below during the trial.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Rakesh Kumar, J)
Praful/-
Dr. Dilip Chaudhary
The State of Bihar
Ms. Meena Chaudhary
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
