Birendra Mohan @ Gorakh Singh v. State Of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly this application is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 323, 327, 341, 379
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 39 rr. 1, 2
Judgment
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. M.P. Bhartee For the State : Mr. Dr. Mayanand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 5 15-02-2012 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated
Operative part
30.1.2008 passed in Danapur P.S. case No. 767 of 2006 by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, taking the cognizance of the defence under Sections 341,327,323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the accused- petitioners. It appears that on the basis of the written report of Opposite party No.2 N.K. Srivastava, Danapue P.S. case No. 367 of 2006 was instituted under Sections 341,327,323,379/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 3.12.2006 against the accused-petitioner. After submission of the charge-sheet by the police the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur on perusal of the case diary and charge-sheet took cognizance of the offence under Sections 341,323,327 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40754 of 2008 (5) dt.15-02-2012 through order dated 30.1.2008. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner was tenant in the premises of Opposite party no.2. Due to harassing attitude of Opposite party No.2 and his wife, thepetitioner filed Title Suit No. 437 of 2006 in the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Patna for declaring him bonafide tenant and also filed injunction petition under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the CPC on 30.1.2006. After receiving the notice on the suit and the injunction petition the Opposite party no.2 with ill motive lodged the First Information Report against the petitioner with false and concocted story only to harass, in which petitioner has been summoned through the impugned order. As such the impugned order is counter blast of Title Suit No. 437 of 2006 filed by the petitioner against the Opposite party no.2. The impugned order shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on perusal of the case diary and the charge-sheet arrived at the conclusion that prima facie case under Sections 341,327,323 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Apparently there is no illegality amounting to abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly this application is dismissed. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of defence is concerned, he is at liberty to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40754 of 2008 (5) dt.15-02-2012 raise the defence in trial Court at appropriate stage. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Arun Kumar/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly this application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 323, 327, 341, 379; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 39 rr. 1, 2.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.