CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Binod Kumar Srivastava vs State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary And Ors

Patna High Court · Decided on 8 July 2019 · Citation: (2019) 07 PAT CK 0150

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 323, 341, 379, 406, 420 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 173(2) · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226, 227
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1029 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 358 words
1.

Defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3.

This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing entire investigation including the first information report (for short 'FIR') of Mokama P. S. Case No. 98 of 2018 registered under Sections 323, 341, 379, 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are absolutely false, concocted and fabricated. It is highly unbelievable that the petitioner, who is a respectable person of the locality, would have indulged in the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that on perusal of the FIR itself, it would appear that the petitioner is alleged to have not only caught hold of the informant but also assaulted him and in the meantime co-accused Vinod Kumar snatched golden chain from the possession of the informant. He contended that though the case has been instituted on 17.04.2018, the petitioner has not mentioned in the application as to whether the investigation has been completed or not.

6.

Be that as it may, on perusal of the first information report, as contained in Annexure-1 to the application, I find that the ingredients of a cognizable offence are attracted.

7.

To hold investigation into a cognizable offence is the statutory right of the police. During pendency of the investigation, it would not be proper for this Court to hold that the allegations are false or concocted or fabricated. At the stage of investigation, it is for the investigating agency to find out as to whether allegations mentioned in the complaint are true or false. Once the investigation is completed and a police report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC is submitted, it is for the court of Magistrate to peruse the materials on record and pass order in accordance with law.

8.

For the reasons aforestated, I see no merit in this application. It is dismissed, accordingly.