In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the Patna High Court rejected the plea to quash a C.J.M.'s order taking cognizance of a cheating charge against the petitioners, finding a prima facie case made out under Section 406 IPC despite prior cognizance in another case against only one petitioner.
Application rejected by one counsel.
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.35240 of 2012
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -330 Year- 2010 Thana -Kadamkuan District- PATNA
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manindra Kishore Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Humayu Ahmad Khan, APP For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chakraborty
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 17-05-2017
Heard Mr. Manindra Kishore Singh, the learned counsel
for the petitioners, Mr. Ajay Kumar Chakraborty, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and the learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35240 of 2012 dt.17-05-2017
2/4
America. He came Indian two months ago to meet his relatives and friends. He has further alleged that on 07.08.2010, his friend namely Zahid Hussain requested him for monetary help for solemnizing the marriage of his daughter. The informant gave an amount of Rs. 20,000/- in cash and assured to send more money after arranging from relatives in America for which he has requested to provide him a bank account number. The said Zahid Hussain had no bank account and so, these petitioners, who were also acquainted with the informant, asked him to transfer the amount in his bank account No. 025001006588 of petitioner No. 1 in ICICI Bank so that the petitioner no. 1 after withdrawing the amount may hand over the same to Zahid Hussain. The informant returned back America and after arranging money transferred 1900 U.S. Dollar i.e. Rs. 1,80,658/- according to Indian Currency. The petitioner No. 1 on receipt of the said amount withheld the same and did not hand over to Zahid Hussain. The informant suspecting some foul play and on getting information that the said money has not been given to his friend, visited India and contacted the petitioner no. 1, who finally refused to pay the said money. The informant in such circumstances lodged the case on the basis of which the present Kadam Kuan P.S. Case No. 330 of 2010 was registered. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet on
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35240 of 2012 dt.17-05-2017
3/4
31.07.2011 against the petitioners for the offence under Section 406 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned C.J.M. took cognizance on 20.08.2011 against the petitioners and transferred the case for trial to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35240 of 2012 dt.17-05-2017
4/4
(Sanjay Kumar, J)
ajaypd./-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| Uploading Date | 22.05.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
22.05.2017 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is liable to be tried for the same occurrence where cognizance was already taken against a co-accuser in a separate case filed by the same complainant.
Whether the Rome Principles (double jeopardy under Article 20(2)) preclude proceedings against petitioner No.2 when only petitioner No.1 was tried in the earlier case.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kripa Nath Singh
Amit Kumar
The State Of Bihar
Khalid Raza @ Sajid Raja
SANJAY KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
