Allowed

Ejazul Bari v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC25 Apr 2016CR. MISC./38769/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the court examined allegations of money-taking and land sale. Finding that the facts did not disclose a criminal offence, the High Court allowed the application and set aside the order of cognizance.

What did the court decide?

The order of cognizance dated 20.02.2007 in Complaint Case No. 1012 of 2006 is set aside so far as the petitioner is concerned.

Ejazul Bari Vs the State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38769 of 2010 dt.25-04-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38769 of 2010 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -0 Year- null Thana -null District- PATNA =========================================================== Ejazul Bari S/o Dr. Qamrul Bari. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-04-2016

¶4

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order of cognizance dated 20.02.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 1012 of 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Patna.

¶5

The case of the complainant is that the petitioner representing himself as a power of attorney holder of another person took money from him and thereafter said land has been sold.

¶6

The submission of the petitioner is that he is not the person who had accepted the money which will evident from the fact that the complainant had filed money suit for recovery of money in question against the land holder i.e. Title Suit No. 162 of 2010.

¶7

On the other hand, the complainant submits that since the petitioner representing himself as a power of attorney holder had taken money from him, he should be put on trial.

¶8

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38769 of 2010 dt.25-04-2016

¶9

Even accepting the complaint petition I am unable to convince myself that as to how any criminal offence is made out in the facts of the case. Hence the application is allowed and the order of cognizance dated 20.02.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 1012 of 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Patna is hereby set aside so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶10

Prakash/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 3.5.2016
Transmission Date 3.5.2016

¶11

(Anjana Prakash, J)

Ejazul Bari v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ejazul Bari 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

Sunil Kumar Mishra Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Tamana Khatoon @ Ladli Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Shama Khatoon @ Bibi Shama Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pramod Gulabchand Dargad and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar

Shyam Sunder Agrawal and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Arun Kumar Sinha Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.