The Patna High Court dismissed an application challenging an order under Cr.P.C. sec. 482. The Court held the application was not maintainable as the petitioner was informed to appear but failed to do so, finding no abuse of process warranting interference.
Thepresent application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been 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.29968 of 2014
====================================================== 1. Niraj Singh @ Niraj Kumar Singh Son of Late Sudhir Singh Resident of Village - Bhalar, P.S. - Bharhaa, Dist.-Munger .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Bibhuti Singh Son of Late Khorho Singh Resident of Village - Bhalar, P.S. Bharhara, Dist.-Munger .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 2 21-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The present application is filed against the order dated 24.03.2014 passed in Cr. Revision No. 195 of 2013 whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Munger dismissed the aforesaid Criminal Revision of the petitioner preferred against the order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Munger in Case No. 1220M of 1989 declaring the possession of the 1st Party/Opposite Party No. 2 in respect to the land in dispute.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29968 of 2014 (2) dt.21-06-2016
2/2
without hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist.
On going through the impugned order, it appears that on 01.03.2014 the counsel of the petitioner was informed to appear on 24.03.2014 to argue the case but he did not appear and on perusal of the material available on record, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order. I do not find any illegality amounting to abuse of process of Court for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 Cr. P.C.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)
Shail/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the revision against the magistrate's order in a land possession case was passed without adequate hearing and violates procedural fairness.
Whether interference is warranted in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Niraj Singh @ Niraj Kumar Singh
State of Bihar
Bibhuti Singh
Rajendra Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
