Dismissed

Anchal Kumar Pandey @ Anchal Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC2 Aug 2016CR. MISC./19425/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal miscellaneous proceedings arising from a discharge petition rejection, the Patna High Court, invoking inherent jurisdiction, examined whether the learned Magistrate erred in rejecting the discharge application. The court found no error and dismissed the petition to quash.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the order rejecting the discharge petition was dismissed. The impugned order stands confirmed.

Anchal Kumar Pandey @ Anchal Pandey Vs The State Of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.19425 of 2014

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2012 Thana -BUXAR INDUSTRIAL District- BUXAR ====================================================== Anchal Kumar Pandey @ Anchal Pandey Son of Kanhaiya Pandey, resident of village- Harikishunpur, P.S.- Buxar (Industrial Area), DistrictBuxar .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anant Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 02-08-2016 Heard Sri Rana Ishwar Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anant Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

¶3

The sole petitioner 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 24.09.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Buxar in Buxar (Industrial ) P.S. Case No.30/2012, G.R. No.652 /2012, Tr. No.2718/2012. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶4

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this

¶5

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19425 of 2014 (2) dt.02-08-2016

¶6

2/2

¶7

case. There was no material in the case diary, even then the petitioner was forwarded as accused and even the discharge petition was not considered properly. He submits that some of the witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case, are interested witnesses. Accordingly, he has made a prayer for quashing the impugned order.

¶8

Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials on record including the impugned order. After going through the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has committee no error in passing the order. The petition stands dismissed.

¶9

(Rakesh Kumar, J)

¶10

NKS/U

Anchal Kumar Pandey @ Anchal Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anchal Kumar Pandey @ Anchal Pandey 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kokari Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Vijay Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Tata Teleservices Limited Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Satyanarayan Ram and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Arun Sahani and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Md. Shahid Alam Vs The State Of Bihar