Dismissed

Bhola Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC26 Apr 2016CR. MISC./45601/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the Patna High Court dismissed the prayer to quash an order refusing to initiate proceedings in a prosecution arising out of a land dispute. The court held allegations of assault and snatching were general and the core issue was a dispute between parties.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the impugned orders dismissing the complaint section 203 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Bhola Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45601 of 2014 (2) dt.26-04-2016 1

¶2

	IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUD Criminal Miscellaneous N	ICATURE AT PATNA o.45601 of 2014
	Arising Out of PS.Case No. -51 Year- 2012 Thana -SIT SITAMARHI ===============================	AMARHI COMPLAINT CASE District- =======================
	Bhola Singh, Son of Late Indradeo Singh P.S.- Pupri, District- Sitamarhi	Resident of village- Manikpur,
	Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Kapildeo Singh S/o Late Sri Narth Singh 3. Madhav Singh S/o Late Narayan Singh 4. Raghav Singh S/o Late Narayan Singh 5. Santosh Singh S/o Kapildeo Singh 6. Shivji Singh S/o Late Gang Bisun Singh. All are resident of Village- Manikpur, P.S.- =============================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Virendr For the State : Mr. Rina Si ===============================	.... .... Petitioner Pupri, District- Sitamarhi .... .... Opposite Parties. ======================= a Kumar, Advocate. nha(App) =======================
	CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIC ORAL ORDER	E GOPAL PRASAD
2	26-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for	the petitioner and learned
	counsel for the State.
	2. This is a petition for	quashing the order dated
	04.07.2014 passed in Cr. Revision	No. 38 of 2014 by which
	learned Sessions has affirmed the	order passed by Sri Manish
	Dwivedi, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st	Class, Pupri, Sitamarhi,
	dismissing the complaint filed by the No. C-1/51/12.	petitioner in Complaint Case
	3. The prosecution case a	s alleged complainant and
	opposite party nos. 2 to 6 accused	having consensus exchange

¶3

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45601 of 2014 (2) dt.26-04-2016 2

¶4

their shares of land with each others and there was land dispute between the parties. Further allegation that the complainant was abused and assault and snatching of Rs. 20,000/- from pocket and wrist watch of the complainant.

¶5

The trial court taking into consideration the statement of complainant on Solemn Affirmation as well as statement of witnesses and prosecution regarding exchange of land and harvesting with the complainant share of the land and material on record dismissed the complaint giving reason that matter concerned with land dispute between the parties and both the parties are descendent of common ancestor.

¶6

Section 203 of Cr.P.C. provides that “if, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismissed the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing”.

¶7

From the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Judicial Magistrate have dismissed the complaint petition by giving valid reason taking into consideration the Solemn Affirmation of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and

¶8

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45601 of 2014 (2) dt.26-04-2016 3

¶9

statement of witnesses recorded during enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and fact and circumstance of the case and given the valid reason that the matter concern with the land dispute between the parties. The Revisional Court also rejected the revision petition considered the order and forced the reason valid.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order on the ground that there is specific allegation making out a prima facie case and if allegation made is accepted as there is allegation of abuse and assault and snatching of Rs.20,000/-.

¶11

However, the trial court considers the fact and found the matter in dispute is land dispute and to put undue pressure on accused, so the present case has been filed.

¶12

I find that the allegations ornamental as allegation of snatching Rs. 20,000/- and wrist watch and allegation of abuse and assault is general and omnibus.

¶13

Hence, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge.

¶14

As a result, the petition is dismissed.

¶15

m.p.

¶16

(Gopal Prasad, J)

¶17

U T

Bhola Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukh Sagar Kumar Singh @ Lallu and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Bhola Sao Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State Of Bihar Through Secretary, Law Department, Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Ranjit Saw Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Rashid Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Ajay Rai @ Ajay Kumar Rai @ Ajay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar