Petition to quash cognizance under Sections 420 and 323 IPC taken in a Begusarai complaint case over an unpaid loan and alleged assault. No petitioner appeared; the court found cognizance prima facie justified and dismissed the petition for non-prosecution, leaving liberty to raise points before the trial court.
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.49418 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12218 Year-2014 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District- Begusarai
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.A.M.P.Mehta, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-03-2023 No one appears on call.
The present petition has been preferred for quashing
of the order dated 01.08.2014 for the offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with complaint against petitioner no. 1 and under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against all the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 12218 C/2014 dated 11.02.2014 under Begusarai and case is pending in the Court of learned J.M.-Ist Class, Begusarai.
As per the allegation, altogether Rs. 2,49,975 was given to the accused persons by the complainant and they were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49418 of 2015(2) dt.17-03-2023 2/2
known to him and an agreement was also made on non-judicial stamp. However, after the expiry of the date fixed for return of the amount, when a demand was made save and except payment of Rs. 20,000/- no further payment was made and on 08.02.2014, allegation has been made that when he went to the house of accused persons, he was assaulted. Accordingly, the case.
The Court having prima facie satisfied took cognizance on 01.08.2014 under section 420 as also 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Considering the kind of allegation that has come, the learned Court has rightly taken cognizance in the matter on 01.08.2014.
No case of interference is made out.
However as no one has appeared, the petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution with liberty to raise all the points before the Trial Court at an appropriate stage.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Jagdish/Neha/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the cognizance taken on 01.08.2014 under Sections 420 and 323 IPC in Complaint Case No. 12218 C/2014 should be quashed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Thakur @ Anil Kumar Thakur
Pankaj Thakur @ Pankaj Kumar Thakur
Vikki Kumar
Chhotu Kumar
State of Bihar
Vikash Kumar
Rajiv Roy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
