Dismissed

Nagendra Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC13 Sept 2017CR. MISC./36789/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of the order taking cognizance under IPC and Arms Act. Court dismissed the application as infructuous due to subsequent compromise petition and hostile witness depositions, directing the lower court to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Quashing application dismissed as infructuous due to subsequent compromise and hostile depositions; lower court directed to conclude trial expeditiously.

Nagendra Prasad Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36789 of 2014

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -123 Year- 2010 Thana -PAKRIDAYAL DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI)

¶4

===========================================================

¶5

Nagendra Prasad Yadav Son of Shri Gorakh Prasad Yadav Resident of villageMajhauliya, P.S.- Pakridayal, District- East Champaran (Motihari)

¶6

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Harendra Rai son of Surendra Rai. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aaruni Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. H.A. Khan, APP

¶7

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT

¶8

Date: 13-09-2017

¶9

Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the Opposite Party no. 2, be kept on record.

¶10

The present application has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 24.07.2013 passed by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Pakridayal P.S. Case No. 123 of 2010, corresponding to T.R. No. 2516 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a and 26 of the Arms Act.

¶11

From the counter affidavit it appears that a compromise petition as well as a permission petition have been filed on 16.06.2017 i.e., subsequent to filing of the instant quashing application, by the witnesses in Tr. No. 2718 of 2012 arising out of Pakridayal P.S. Case

¶12

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36789 of 2014 dt.13-09-2017

¶13

2/2

¶14

No. 123 of 2010. It further appears that all the witnesses have consistently deposed as hostile in the said trial.

¶15

In view of both the aforesaid developments subsequent to filing of the instant quashing application, no further order needs to be

¶16

passed in the instant case.

¶17

The quashing application is dismissed as infructuous.

¶18

However, in view of the said compromise and depositions of the witnesses, the Court below shall proceed expeditiously in accordance with law to take the matter to its logical conclusion.

¶19

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

¶20

Prakash/-

¶21

AFR/NAFR	NA
CAV DATE	NA
UploadingDate	19.09.2017
Transmission Date	19.09.2017

Nagendra Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra Prasad Yadav 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

Jitendra Yadav and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Anil Kumar Suman and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Raja Kumar Paswan and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Laltu Kumar @ Randhir Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu Swarnkar Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Makbul Vs The State Of Bihar