Six petitioners sought quashing of an order rejecting their Section 227 discharge petition in a trial arising from an assault and robbery FIR, where police charge-sheeted them citing CCTV footage. The court declined to invoke inherent jurisdiction to quash and rejected the application.
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.39671 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1074 Year-2021 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
| =================== | ... ... Opposite Party/s =================================== |
|---|---|
| Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : |
Mr. Ajit Ranjan Kumar, Adv |
| For the Informant : : : |
Mr. N.N. Agrawal, Sr. Adv Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, Adv Mr. Kumar, Rajdeep, Adv |
| For the Opposite Party/s : =================== |
Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP =================================== |
| CORAM: HONOURABL SINGH |
E MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH |
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39671 of 2024(5) dt.10-12-2024 2/4
ORAL ORDER
5 10-12-2024
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea by which the petition filed by the petitoners U/s 227 of the Cr.P.C. in S. T. No. 532 of 2023/ Registration No. 532 of 2023 arising out of K. Hat Sahayak P.S. Case No. 1074 of 2021 was rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39671 of 2024(5) dt.10-12-2024 3/4
neighbours and the informant is the own uncle of the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39671 of 2024(5) dt.10-12-2024 4/4
cases of P.Vijayan Vs. State of Keral (2010) 2 SCC 398 and M.E. Shivalinga Murty vs CBI (2020) 2 SCC 768 , this Court do not find it safe to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the order.
rejected.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
Jyoti/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Should the discharge petition filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C., and thereby the cognizance taken of charges including assault, be upheld?
Can inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. safely be invoked to quash the court below's order?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.Vijayan Vs. State of KeralRelied on¶7
(2010) 2 SCC 398 · Who else cites this
M.E. Shivalinga Murty vs CBIRelied on¶7
(2020) 2 SCC 768 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikash Singh @ Vikas Kumar @ Bikas Kumar @ Bikash Singh
Bikram Kumar @ Vikram Singh @ Rishu
Chandra Shekhar Singh @ Vikky
Nikesh Singh @ Nikesh Kumar Singh @ Barku
Vikash Kumar Singh @ Chotku
Anjani Kumar Singh
Chandra Prakash Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
