Santosh Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
the order of framing charge and accordingly, this petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. The State Of Bihar 2. Leela Devi Wife of Ashok Choudhary Resident of Village-Koiribigha, P.S.-Belaganj, District-Gaya .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. M.K.Khare, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.46612 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Santosh Chaudhary 2. Mahesh Choudhary Both sons of Ramashish Choudhary Resident of Village Koiribigha, P.S.-Belaganj, District-Gaya Versus .... .... Petitioner/s
Operative part
The State Of Bihar 2. Leela Devi Wife of Ashok Choudhary Resident of Village-Koiribigha, P.S.-Belaganj, District-Gaya .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. M.K.Khare, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 3 11-12-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. The attention of this court is drawn towards the statement of victim recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C on 27.11.2012 in which she clearly stated that she was not kidnapped rather she solemnized her marriage with petitioner no.1 by her own sweet will and it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that victim is presently residing with petitioner no.1. From perusal of record, I find that charge has already been framed and trial of petitioners has commenced and in course of trial, altogether, two prosecution witnesses have already been examined. No doubt, victim has not supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C and learned Magistrate found victim major at the time of recording her statement but since trial of the petitioners has already commenced, I do not think it proper to interfere with Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46612 of 2013 (3) dt.11-12-2013 2 the order of framing charge and accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with direction to Adhoc. Addl. Sessions Judge II, Gaya to take step to record the statement of victim in course of trial and if the trial court is satisfied that the victim was major at the time of alleged occurrence and she has not supported the prosecution case, trial court shall proceed for disposal of Sessions trial no. 7 of 2013/ 243 of 2013 arising out of Belaganj P.S. case no. 285/2012 because in the aforesaid situation, continuance of the prosecution of petitioners would amount to misuse of process of law. Shahid/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the order of framing charge and accordingly, this petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164.
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.