The High Court at Patna dismissed a criminal revision application seeking to quash an order taking cognizance of offences in a proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The court held that due to the efflux of time, the application had become infructuous.
The application seeking quashing of the order dated 17.02.2016 was dismissed as infructuous.
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.19363 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -131 Year- 2012 Thana -HISUA District- NAWADA
======================================================
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Meena Singh, APP
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
3 15-02-2018 This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in connection with Nadirganj P.S. Case No.131 of 2012 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 341, 323, 448 and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
It is submitted by Mr. Shoe Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners that due to efflux of time, the application has become infructuous.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed as infructuous.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
Md.S./-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for quashing the impugned order under Section 482 CrPC should be allowed or dismissed on the ground of infructuousness due to efflux of time.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Umesh Yadav and others
The State of Bihar and others
Ashwani Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
