Three petitioners invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an order rejecting their discharge petition. The Court found no apparent error and dismissed the petition.
Petition qua criminal miscellaneous application stands dismissed.
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. 26915 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -75 Year- 2009 Thana -LALGANJ District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== 1. Bishuni Rai @ Bishundeo Rai S/O Late Awadh Rai. 2. Sipahi Rai S/O Late Jamun Rai. 3. Jaglali Rai @ Jaglal Rai S/O Late Ramchandra Rai All resident of Village Sarariya, Post Khanjahachak, Police Station Lalganj, District Vaishali. .... .... Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. D.N.Tiwary (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
4. 27-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Sri D.N.Tiwary, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Three petitioners, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 21-09-2012 passed by learned Special Judge, Hajipur in G.R. No. 1193 of 2009, Tr. No. 356 of 2012 (arising out of Lalganj P.S. Case No. 75 of 2009). By the said order, learned Special Judge has rejected the petition filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge on behalf of petitioners.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the order impugned has been passed without application of mind, whereas,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26915 of 2013 (4) dt.27-06-2016
2/2
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor while opposing the prayer of petitioners submits that there is no apparent error in the impugned order.
Besides hearing, I have also perused the material on record. After going through the same, I do not find any apparent error warranting interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.)
Anay
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court while exercising inherent powers should interfere with the rejection of discharge petition by the Special Judge.
Whether the impugned order suffers from any apparent error warranting interference.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Bishuni Rai @ Bishundeo Rai and others
The State of Bihar
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
