Petitioners challenged the order of cognizance and its affirmation by the Sessions Judge, arguing false implication. The court held a trial was necessary to determine the nature of death. The quashing application was dismissed.
Quashing application dismissed; orders of cognizance and revision upheld.
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.34593 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2017 Thana- RIVILGANJ District- Saran
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra- Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar- Advocate Ms. Raj Rani Choudhary- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shashtri- A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER
APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34593 of 2021(3) dt.28-08-2023 2/5
revision application preferred by the petitioners has been erroneously rejected affirming the order of cognizance.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34593 of 2021(3) dt.28-08-2023 3/5
prosecution. Further, when the informant realized his mistake, a compromise was also entered in between the informant and the accused persons for which a compromise petition dated 16.08.2017 was filed in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhapra. The learned counsel submits that learned Magistrate after going through all the evidences on record differed with the police report and took cognizance of the offences under Section 302, 201 and 34 of the I.P.C. It is next submitted that the said cognizance was taken based on the statement made by some highly interested witnesses of the family of the deceased. It is further submitted that being aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance, the petitioners preferred a criminal revision before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Saran at Chhapra, who without considering the material on record, dismissed the criminal revision in a most cryptic manner by an order dated 08.03.2021 (Annexure4).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34593 of 2021(3) dt.28-08-2023 4/5
not supported the case of the prosecution and she was also provided proper medical treatment by the doctor during the course of treatment on account of the fact that she met with a road accident.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34593 of 2021(3) dt.28-08-2023 5/5
from the side of the deceased, but the name of the witness is not disclosed in the quashing application that who was the witness whose statement was taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate for arriving at a conclusion that the case warrants a trial.
accordingly.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the order of cognizance and the revisional order affirming it in a case involving murder allegations?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Niraj Rai
Pankaj Kumar
Dipak Kumar
Chandeshwar Rai
Dipu Devi
Savitri Devi
SATYAVRAT VERMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
