The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court held that allegations attracted cognizable offence ingredients and were supported by evidence, rejecting the claim of a malicious civil dispute.
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.38519 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -222 Year- 2010 Thana -SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSITAMARHI
===========================================================
All are residents of Village- Jajuar, Tola-Lakshmipur P.S.- Katra, District Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties.
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mauli Chaurasia, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 22-04-2016
By way of the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the petitioners seek quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Trial No. 521 of 2013, arising out of Complaint Case No. 222 of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38519 of 2015 dt.22-04-2016
2/3
2010, wherein cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38519 of 2015 dt.22-04-2016
3/3
illegality in summoning the petitioners in exercise of power conferred under Section 204 of the CrPC.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)
Kanchan/U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing application under Section 482 CrPC should be allowed given the existence of cogent evidence against the petitioners.
Whether the defence of ongoing civil dispute is a valid ground to assail a summoning order in a criminal case.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Jageshwar Raut
Rameshwar Raut
Jitendra Raut
Sudhir Raut
Sunil Raut
Sujit Raut
Ashwani Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
