Disposed

Meena Kumari v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC22 Nov 2019CR. MISC./18428/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two criminal miscellaneous petitions. The court observed that the disputes regarding land conveyance and Power of Attorney misuse required detailed factual investigation better suited for trial courts. Consequently, the petitions were disposed of with a direction to prefer applications in the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed; parties directed to prefer discharge applications in the court below for the other numbered cases; present petition not entertained.

Meena Kumari Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Patna HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18428 of 2015

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2078 Year-2012 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna

¶3

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

¶4

Meena Kumari wife of Rajendra Kumar Suman, resident of MohallaMadhopur, B.R.M. Mahila College Road P.S.- Kotwali, District- Munger.

¶5

... ... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar

¶8

Abinash Kumar Son of Late Tarini Pd. Mandal resident of Village- Lagma P.S.- Tetia Bazar District- Munger at present resident of New Area Kadamkuan, Near Congress Maidan P.S.- Kadamkuan District- Patna.

¶9

... ... Opposite Parties

¶10

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

¶11

with

¶12

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 17349 of 2015

¶13

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1837 Year-2012 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-

¶14

Patna

¶15

============================================== Rajendra Kumar Suman son of Late Vakil Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla- Madhopur, B.R.M. Mahila College Road, P.S.- Kotwali, DistrictMunger

¶16

... ... Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

The State Of Bihar

¶19

Abinash Kumar Son of Late Tarini Prasad Mandal, resident of villageLagma, P.S.- Pethia Bazar District- Munger at present resident of New Area Kadamkuan, Near Congress Maidan, P.S.- Kadamkuan, DistrictPatna

¶20

... ... Opposite Parties

¶21

================== Appearance :	============================
(In Criminal Miscellaneous No.	18428 of 2015)
For the Petitioner :	Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, Advocate
For the State :	Mr. Gopesh Kumar, APP
For Opp. Party no. 2 :	Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In Criminal Miscellaneous No.	17349 of 2015)
For the Petitioner :	Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, Advocate
For the State :	Mr. Gopesh Kumar, APP

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18428 of 2015 dt.22-11-2019 2/3

¶23

For Opp. Party no. 2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Date : 22-11-2019

¶27

Both the petitions have been heard together and

¶28

are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶29

There appears to be some dispute with respect to the conveyance of a plot of land in favour of the wife of the petitioners. Opposite party no. 2 claims to have executed Power Of Attorney in favour of the petitioners for the limited purpose but the same is alleged to have been misused.

¶30

The petitioners but have different story to

¶31

narrate.

¶32

An attempt was made by this Court to make the parties to sit across the table and settle the dispute but it appears that no effort was made by the parties for settlement of disputes.

¶33

Since there are many factual aspects which have to be dealt with for deciding whose version is correct, it would only be appropriate that the parties are relegated to the court below where, the petitioners may, if so advised,

¶34

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18428 of 2015 dt.22-11-2019 3/3

¶35

prefer an application for discharge and raise all such grounds which have been urged herein. If such a petition is filed, the court below shall take into account all necessary facts and pass orders in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the fact that the present petition has not been entertained.

¶36

The other case viz Cr. Misc. No. 17349 of 2015 (Rajendra Kr Suman Vs. State of Bihar & another) in which cognizance has been taken under Section 417 of the IPC and Section 138 of the N.I. Act, shall also be proceeded with and be taken to a logical conclusion.

¶37

With the aforesaid observation, the petitions stand disposed of.

¶38

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

¶39

BT/-

¶40

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	26.11.2019
Transmission Date	26.11.2019

Meena Kumari v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Kumari v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

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

Kailash Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Imam Khan Vs The State of Bihar

Jitendra Yadav @ Chhotu Yadav @ Nirmal Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Anita Kumari and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Nesar Khan Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Raj Kumar Prasad and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.