Patna High Court composed a single bench that dismissed this application under Section 482 CrPC challenging a summons order. The court found no illegality or abuse of process and allowed the petitioners to raise their land dispute points at trial.
The Criminal Miscellaneous application stands dismissed.
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.50469 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -447 Year- 2009 Thana -NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictNALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF)
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioners.
Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties.
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. For the State : Mr. For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-07-2017
Heard.
2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 12.04.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.447C of 2009, whereby the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nalanda at Biharsharif, summoned the 7 accused, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners, under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under Sections 323, 354 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code against them.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50469 of 2013 dt.11-07-2017 2/2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in fact, there is land dispute in between the complainant/opposite party no.2 Sanju Devi and her sister-in-law (Nanad) Savitri Devi and due to that reasons, the petitioners, who are brother-in-law (Nandosi) and nephews (Bhaginas) of the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant/opposite party no.2, have also been falsely implicated in this case.
4. On going through the impugned order, I find no illegality therein amounting to an abuse of the process of the court for interference with the same in an extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure.
5. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise their points, as raised herein, at the appropriate stage in the trial court.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)
P.S./-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned summons order suffers from any illegality amounting to an abuse of the process of court under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the application filed under Section 482 CrPC should be allowed or dismissed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Narayan Sao @ Narayan Sao
Rakesh Kumar Shashi @ Rakesh Prasad
Mahesh Kumar Shashi @ Mahesh Prasad
The State of Bihar
Sanju Devi
Rajendra Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
