Dismissed

Sumant Kumar and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC19 Nov 2014CR. MISC./5836/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that since the State took cognizance of the offence after the initial false final report was abandoned, the petition to quash the F.I.R. became infructuous and was dismissed. A separate interim order was disposed of with a direction to assail the cognizance order via a fresh petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing was dismissed as infructuous; the interlocutory application was disposed of directing a fresh petition against the order of cognizance.

Sumant Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.5836 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Sumant Kumar, S/O Jitendra Mandal, R/O Mohalla - Chhoti Keshopur, P.S. Jamalpur, District - Munger 2. Jitendra Mandal, S/O Late Sheo Narayan Mandal R/O Mohalla - Chhoti Keshopur, P.S. Jamalpur, District - Munger 3. Shashikala Devi, W/O Jitendra Mandal R/O Mohalla - Chhoti Keshopur, P.S. Jamalpur, District - Munger 4. Upendra Mandal, S/O Sheodhari Mandal, R/O Mohalla - Basant Bihar Colony, Raghunath Path ( Bailey Road ), P.S. Danapur, Patna, District – Patna 5. Aruna Devi, W/O Upendra Mandal R/O Mohalla – Basant Bihar Colony, Raghunath Path ( Bailey Road ), P.S. Danapur, Patna, District - Patna 6. Chandan Kumar, S/O Upendra Mandal, R/O Mohalla - Basant Bihar Colony, Raghunath Path ( Bailey Road ), P.S. Danapur, Patna, District - Patna 7. Pankaj Kumar, S/O Upendra Mandal, R/O Mohalla - Basant Bihar Colony, Raghunath Path ( Bailey Road ), P.S. Danapur, Patna, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Mathura Prasad, S/O Not Known R/O Mohalla - Basant Bihar Colony Raghunath Path (Bailey Road), P.S. Danapur, District – Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Chandra Sahni, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. (A.P.P.) ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶3

7 19-11-2014 The petitioners have come up before this Court seeing quashing of the First Information Report of Danapur P.S. Case No. 360/11 which was instituted for the offences under Sections 363, 365, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶4

The ground of challenge was that during the course of investigation, the daughter of the informant gave her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure intimating

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5836 of 2012 (7) dt.19-11-2014

¶6

2/3

¶7

that the petitioners were falsely implicated at the instance of her father and that the mother, being a step-mother, did not take good care of the daughter.

¶8

When this case came up for consideration before this court, Mr. Ram Chandra Sahni, learned advocate, was not available to press the application. He was aware of the fact that when the matter came up for consideration before the court, final form had already been submitted. It is under these circumstances that on 29.06.2012, an order was passed staying all further proceedings in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 360/2011. Thereafter, the learned S.D.J.M., Danapur, vide his order dated 28.09.2013, differing with the police report took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 363, 365 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

After coming to know of these developments, learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly filed an interlocutory application, namely, I.A. No. 2118 of 2014 seeking permission to impugn the order of cognizance dated 28.09.2013 with a further prayer to quash the same.

¶10

This Court is of the opinion that the order of cognizance dated 28.09.2013 cannot be assailed in this petition, which originally was filed for quashing of the First Information

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5836 of 2012 (7) dt.19-11-2014

¶12

3/3

¶13

Report.

¶14

I.A. No. 2118 of 2014 is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to assail the order taking cognizance by way of a fresh petition before this Court.

¶15

So far as the merit of the main petition is concerned, it need not be gone into. The fact that the final report false initially was submitted by the police and such report not having been accepted by the learned S.D.J.M., Danapur, differing with the report and taking cognizance, curtain is drawn over the maintainability of the present petition.

¶16

In view of such development, the present application has become infructuous. The same is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶17

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶18

Dilip/-

¶19

U T

Sumant Kumar and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumant Kumar and Ors. v. the 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

Arun Paswan and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Bindeshwar Rai and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Raj Kumar Jha 'akela' Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Khusboo Kumari and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Arun Kumar Mishra and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar

Shaikh Abdul Kadir Vs The State Of Bihar