Petitioners moved the Patna High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order allowing a criminal revision setting aside the closure of a complaint case. Their counsel withdrew the application during the hearing, stating trial had commenced.
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.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54366 of 2013 dt.03-07-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.54366 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -624 Year- 2013 Thana -SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSAMASTIPUR
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 03-07-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the State.
This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 21.06.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No. 302 of 2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur, allowed the aforesaid Criminal
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54366 of 2013 dt.03-07-2017
Revision setting aside the order dated 06.06.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 624 of 2013, summoning the accusedpetitioners under Section 204 Cr.P.C., on enquiry, only for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code arriving at conclusion that prima facie case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA), Act is also made out.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now
after framing of the charge, the trial of the petitioners is going on, so he does not want to press this application.
In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this application is dismissed as withdrawn as having become infructuous.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)
Bhardwaj/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date06.07.2017 Transmission 06.07.2017 Date
Gautam Singh and others
The State of Bihar and another
Rajendra Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
