This order dismisses a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR related to fishing rights dispute. The court held that prima facie ingredients of offences were disclosed and facts require investigation.
Application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing first information report is 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.78497 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2019 Thana- JHANJHARPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Yogendra Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short ‘the Code’), has been preferred for quashing the F.I.R. bearing Jhanjharpur P.S. Case No. 74 of 2019, registered for the offences under Sections 406 420, 379, 384 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78497 of 2019(2) dt.09-12-2019 2/3
against the petitioners and other accused persons.
The prosecution case, in brief is that, opposite party no.2 Gujari Devi submitted her written report to the S.H.O. Jhanjharpur on 07.04.2019 stating therein that the informant is member of the Fisheries Cooperative Society Limited, Jhanjharpur Block and she had jointly taken lease of khesara No.508 for fishing on payment of Rs. 23,575/- from 01.08.2011 to 30.06.2018. Accordingly, she reared the fishes in the tank of aforesaid plot. It is alleged that when the fishes became ready for fishing accused Ghuran Mukhiya called the informant by sending message, in the office of society and forcibly took the Parwana of the said lease. Other accused persons are alleged to have taken away fishes of about Rs. 17,00,000/- and also forbade the informant for going on the pond and are causing disturbance due to which the informant has suffered from mental and economic loss. Hence, she prayed for taking action against the accused persons.
It is submitted by the petitioners’ counsel that First Information Report does not disclose the entire facts. The allegations against the petitioners are in respect of rival claims to fishing rights. The informant’s ‘ Bandobasti ’ for the pond inquestion had lapsed on 30.06.2018. In the circumstances, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78497 of 2019(2) dt.09-12-2019 3/3
informant had no fishing right over the pond in–question, on 07.04.2019, when she alleges that petitioners had forcefully taken away fish, caused disturbance at the pond, and also indulged in assault. The submissions made by the petitioners’ counsel are substantially factual denial of the case. At present, investigation is still going on.
From perusal of the First Information report ingredients of the offences under the sections of the Indian Penal Code for which cognizance has been taken are prima facie to be found.
In the circumstances, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to exercise jurisdiction U/s 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of the First Information Report as these are facts which can very well be ascertained in the course of investigation.
Considering the aforesaid, the application stands dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
shyambihari/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR.
Whether the facts prima facie establish the ingredients of the offences.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PINKU MUKHIYA AND OTHERS
THE STATE OF BIHAR
GUJARI DEVI
MADHURESH PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
