Dismissed

Md. Dipu v. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Home Department, Govt. Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC10 Feb 2015CR. WJC/1226/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court heard two criminal writ petitions challenging orders impugned in respect of offences under sections 295, 295A, and 153 IPC. The Court dismissed both petitions on maintainability grounds, holding that statutory alternative remedies were available and no jurisdictional issues were demonstrated. Petitioners were granted liberty to approach the statutory appellate authority.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed both writ applications on maintainability grounds with liberty to approach the statutory appellate authority.

Md. Dipu Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1180 of 2014 dt.10-02-2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1180 of 2014

¶4

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) =========================================================== Md. Nahid Mian @ Md. Nahid son of Bholu Mian Resident of village/Mohalla - Banaulia, P.S. - Bihar, District - Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through The Secretary Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda. 3. The Superintendent of Police Nalanda.

¶5

.... .... Respondent/s

¶6

with

¶7

=========================================================== Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1226 of 2014

¶8

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) =========================================================== Md. Dipu son of Bholu Mian Resident of Village / Mohalla - Banaulia PS - Bihar, District - Nalanda.

¶9

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶10

Versus 1. The State of Bihar Through The Secretary Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda. 3. The Superintendent of Police Nalanda.

¶11

.... .... Respondent/s

¶12

=========================================================== Appearance : (In Cr. WJC No. 1180 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rana B.N. Singh, A.C. to G.P.-9 (In Cr. WJC No. 1226 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Khurshid Alam For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Kumari Amrita, G.P.10 Mr. M.K. Upadhyay, A.C. to G.P.10

¶13

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) Date: 10-02-2015

¶14

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1180 of 2014 dt.10-02-2015

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶16

Learned counsel for the State has raised a preliminary objection that statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioners against the orders impugned.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the jurisdictional issue is involved in the matter. In support of his stand, he refers to a judgment and order dated 27.1.2015 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No.1214 of 2014: Md. Rinku Mian vs. The State of Bihar and others and submits that under similar circumstances, these two petitioners have also been directed to be externed for a period of six months.

¶18

So far as the facts of the petitioners’ case are concerned, it is clear from the impugned orders that charges against the petitioners also relate to Sections 295, 295A and 153 of the Indian Penal Code, which would be relevant charges relatable to the disturbance of public order. Moreover, there is nothing in the reply to the show cause filed by the petitioners which indicates that the petitioners had expressed their desire to be given reasonable opportunity of examining themselves and also of examining any other witnesses whom they wished to produce.

¶19

In the said circumstances, the District Magistrate was not required to pass any other order on the same. Had the petitioners

¶20

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1180 of 2014 dt.10-02-2015

¶21

expressed any such desire, the District Magistrate would have been required to give reasons for not permitting the same to the petitioners. Thus, we are of the view that this is not a case in which the petitioners can be permitted to say that jurisdictional issue is involved. Both the writ applications are, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of maintainability with liberty to the petitioners to approach the statutory appellate authority. In case any such appeals are filed respectively by the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today along with an application for condonation of delay, then the Appellate Authority shall consider the same keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have been pursuing the matters before this Court.

¶22

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)

¶23

V.P.Sinha/-

¶24

(Anjana Mishra, J)

¶25

Md. Dipu v. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Home Department, Govt. Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Dipu v. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Home Department, Govt. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Shankar Vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Surendra Kumar Tiwari

Md. Nahid Mian @ Md. Nahid Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Home Dept. Govt. Of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Pandey and Co.Builders Priva Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs M/S Maa Durga Enterprises and or