Petitioner sought to intervene in a pending criminal complaint case. The courts below held no provision for intervention. The High Court dismissed the application finding no illegality in the lower court orders.
The application for permission to intervene in the pending criminal complaint was 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.5619 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -709 Year- 2013 Thana -SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSARAN
===========================================================
Pradeep Kumar Gupta, son of late Satya Dev Prasad, resident of Gandhi Chowk, Police Station- Chapra Town, District- Saran at Chapra.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B. N. Pandey, APP
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-09-2018
Instant application has been filed against the order dated 25.08.2015 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, in Criminal Revision No.66 of 2015 by which the revisional Court has rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.02.2015 passed in Complaint Case No.709 of 2013, whereby the Court below has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner to intervene in the pending complaint case.
From the impugned order(s) passed by the Courts below, it appears that both the Court have stated that there is no provision in the complaint case for intervening. The Additional
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5619 of 2016 dt.18-09-2018
2/2
Sessions Judge has mentioned in the impugned order that petitioner is at liberty to file separate complaint if he has cause of action for the same, but there is no provision in the criminal complaint to
allow any intervention petition.
This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned
order(s).
This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Priya, J)
J.Alam/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| UploadingDate | 20-09-2018 |
| Transmission Date |
20-09-2018 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an individual can intervene in a pending criminal complaint filed by the State.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application filed against the rejection of the intervention petition.
Pradeep Kumar Gupta
The State of Bihar and Md. Nasrullah Ansari
Sanjay Priya
J.Alam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
