Rejection of a criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of an abuse of process petition. The court held that the petitioner was helpless before the lower courts and that the instant petition lacked merit.
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.4677 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2192 Year-2013 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Ratneshwar Prasad Singh @ Ratneshwar Singh, Son of Late Bashista Singh, Resident of Village- Godai Fulkaha, Police Station- Kanti, DistrictMuzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vindhya Keshari Kumar-Sr. Advocate Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak-Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan-S.P.P. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4677 of 2017(2) dt.17-05-2019 2/3
that learned lower Court has failed to appreciate that the manner whereunder occurrence has been alleged in the complaint petition itself speaks status of the complainant to be an imposter guided by the others, otherwise without any cause, there would not be such kind of activity nor a prudent man could indulge. That being so, it happens to be malicious prosecution at the instance of enemies of the petitioner, whereupon successive orders are fit to be set aside.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4677 of 2017(2) dt.17-05-2019 3/3
solemn affirmation rather the witnesses (Annexure-2), during course of an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have substantiated the same.
another reported in AIR 2019 SC 1671 , it has been held:-
“12. So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.”
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
vikash/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to decide the merits of witness inconsistency and prima facie case under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the impugned order dismissing abuse of process petition is devoid of merit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devendra Prasad Singh vs. State of BiharReferred¶20
Devendra Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and another reported in AIR 2019 SC 1671 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ratneshwar Prasad Singh @ Ratneshwar Singh
The State of Bihar
Krishana Devi
Aditya Kumar Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
