Disposed

Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC21 Sept 2022CR. MISC./17750/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged cognizance under Section 498A IPC. The High Court held it lacks jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to examine disputed facts and the case did not fall under Bhajan Lal guidelines. Application disposed with liberty to raise issues in trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with liberty to petitioners to raise all points before the learned trial court.

Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs State Of Bihar and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17750 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-836 Year-2016 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna

¶3

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

¶4

Pradeep Kumar Sharma, son of Suresh Mistri, Resident of villageDovadih, P.S.-Shekhopur Sarai, District- Shekhpura, presently residing at Molarband Extension, Lane No. 32, House No. 386/06, Badarpur, New Delhi. 2. Suresh Mistri, son of Tetar Mistri, resident of village-Dovadih, P.S.Shekhopur Sarai, District-Shekhpura, presently residing at Patel Colony, P.S.Mahendru, P.S.-Sultanganj, District-Patna.

¶5

Bhaso Devi, wife of Suresh Mistri, resident of village-Dovadih, P.S.Shekhopur Sarai, District-Shekhpura, presently residing at Patel Colony, P.S.Mahendru, P.S.-Sultanganj, District-Patna.

¶6

Priti Kumari, daughter of Suresh Mistri, resident of village-Dovadih, P.S.Shekhopur Sarai, District-Shekhpura, presently residing at Patel Colony, P.S.Mahendru, P.S.-Sultanganj, District-Patna.

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Bihar.

¶10

Sujata Kumari, wife of Pradeep Kumar Sharma, daughter of Parmanand Sharma, resident of Mohalla-Kumhrar, Opposite Police Chowki, Pakka Kuan, P.O.-Bahadurpur Housing Colony, P.S.-Agamkuan, Patna-800026.

¶11

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Kaushik, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Meena Singh, APP

¶13

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

Date : 21-09-2022

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶16

APP for the State.

¶17

In the present case, the petitioners are challenging the cognizance order dated 04.03.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Patna City, Patna whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint Case No. 836 of 2016.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17750 of 2018 dt.21-09-2022 2/3

¶19

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that trial has proceeded in the case and evidence on behalf of the prosecution is being recorded. Despite this fact, the petitioners want to assail the cognizance order as it is based on non-appreciation of the material facts of the case specially against the petitioner nos. 2 to 4.

¶20

Since the petitioners have challenged the cognizance order questioning the facts and controverting the assertions made by the complainant in the complaint petition, it is well settled preposition of law that this Court would not go into the disputed questions of facts while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegation.

¶21

The aforesaid propositions were laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, AIR 1976 SC 1947 and Madhavrao Jiwagi Rao Sciendia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandiojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709 and quoted with approval in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 .

¶22

Now, from the facts of the present case, it is obvious that the petitioners want to invoke the inherent

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17750 of 2018 dt.21-09-2022 3/3

¶24

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to test the veracity of the facts since they have controverted the same with another set of the facts. I am afraid the petitioners could not succeed in getting any relief from this Court as this Court lacks jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the allegation. Furthermore, the case of the petitioner is also not covered under any of the guidelines as enumerated by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal’s case (Supra).

¶25

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to raise all issues, which have been raised herein in this petition, before the learned trial court.

¶26

Accordingly, this application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise all points before the learned trial court, which will be considered by it on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order.

¶27

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶28

V.K.Pandey/-

¶29

AFR/NAFR	N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	22.09.2022
Transmission Date	22.09.2022

Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gabbar Mandal Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Binay Kumar Babloo Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Satish Pandit @ Satish Kumar Pandit Vs the State of Bihar

Bittu Choudhary @ Bittu Kumar Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Om Prakash Kumar @ Bittu Kushwaha Vs The State of Bihar