Allowed

Ajay Kumar and Ors. v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Mar 2015CR. MISC./17672/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed petitioners' application for quashing of order of cognizance passed by Judicial Magistrate. Found no direct complicity of petitioners as they were landlords allowing institute to function. Proceedings set aside though no bearing on other claims.

What did the court decide?

Order of cognizance dated 02.04.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 185 of 2007 set aside.

Ajay Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17672 of 2012

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -185 Year- 2007 Thana –Gandhi Maidan District- PATNA

¶4

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

¶5

Ajay Kumar,

¶6

Dilip Kumar, both sons of Nagarmal Bajoriya,

¶7

Sunita Devi, W/O Ajay Kumar, All residents of S.P.Verma Road, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, Distt & Town-Patna .... .... Petitioners Versus

¶8

1.The State Of Bihar

¶9

Ujjawal Kumar, S/o Shri Lalan Singh, R/O village-Mataso, P.S. Fatehpur, Dist. Gaya .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

¶11

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

¶12

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02-03-2015

¶13

It has been submitted on behalf of the

¶14

petitioners that till date no charges have been
framed.

¶15

The Petitioners seek quashing of the order
of cognizance dated 02.04.2012 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case
No. 185 of 2007.

¶16

The case of the informant is that one M/S

¶17

Agro Nawjiwan Company Private Limited was functioning

¶18

in the house of the petitioners where some students

¶19

had been called for training. On payment by 50

¶20

students at the rate of Rs. 350/- for admission, the
Company fled away. Surprisingly, the case was

¶21

instituted only against the petitioners.

¶22

It has been submitted on behalf of the

¶23

petitioners that the person, who was running the

¶24

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17672 of 2012 dt.02-03-2015

¶25

¶26

Institute was not made an accused and instead
petitioners on whose permission the institute had
been rented have been arrayed an accused in the
present First Information Report. In the case diary
apart from the fact that the petitioners were the
landlords, there is no mention of direct complicity.
Despite the same charge sheet was submitted.

¶27

Notices had been issued to the Opposite
Party No. 2 but none appears on his behalf.

¶28

The case diary was also called for and on
going through the case diary the only aforesaid
material has transpired.

¶29

 Considering such a situation, the
proceeding and the order of cognizance dated
02.04.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Patna in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 185 of
2007 is, hereby, set aside.

¶30

However, the quashment of the present
proceeding shall have no bearing on any other claims.
The Application stands allowed.

¶31

(Anjana Prakash, J.)

¶32

Vats/-

¶33

U T

Ajay Kumar and Ors. v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar and Ors. v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Amod Rai Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Sawood Alam Vs The State Of Bihar

Heera Kant Jha and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Ashok Kr. Sinha and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Niraj Kumar Vs the State of Bihar