Three petitioners approached the Patna High Court under section 482 CrPC to quash a magistrate's order rejecting their discharge petition in a criminal case alleging malicious prosecution. The court found no apparent error warranting interference and dismissed the petition.
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.39503 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -318 Year- 2011 Thana -KADAMKUAN District- PATNA ====================================================== 1. Vijay Kumar Gupta s/o Late Ramdas Gupta 2. Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Gupta s/o Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta 3. Pawan Kumar Gupta s/o Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta All Resident Of Mohalla Gulab Bagh Market, P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Sri Bhupendra Chauhan s/o Late Indrajeet Singh c/o Chauhan Botique & Tailoring, Gulab Bagh Market, P.S. Kadamkuan, District Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Kr.Uday Pratap(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 9 01-08-2016 Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners , learned A.P.P. as well as Sri Binod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of the informant/ opposite party - 2.
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 25.7.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in connection with Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 318 of 2011 , G.R. No. 4633 of 2011, registered for the offence under section 448, 341, 323, 406, 504, 506, 427, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said order the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39503 of 2013 (9) dt.01-08-2016
2/2
learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed for discharge under section 239 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were land lord in which the informant was a tenant. The case has been instituted by the informant maliciously. However, after going through the impugned order, I do not find any apparent error warranting interference.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J)
Praful/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to quash the impugned order rejecting the petition for discharge under section 239 of Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Kumar Gupta
Vikash Kumar
Pawan Kumar Gupta
The State Of Bihar
Sri Bhupendra Chauhan
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
