CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Krishna Deo Mishra vs The State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 25 November 2010 · Citation: (2011) 59 BLJR 2138

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Kumar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 227, 482
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 34573 of 2007
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 · 345 words

Rakesh Kumar, J.—Today again on call, none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, Sri Binoda Nand Mishra, learned Counsel who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Gauri Devi (complainant) is present. Yesterday also, none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. However, the case was adjourned for the day with an indication that no further adjournment shall be granted.

2.

I have also heard learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

3.

The present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.4.2007 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-1st , Khagaria in G.R. Case No. 1429 of 1991, arising out of Gogri P.S. Case No. 232 of 1991, Sessions Trial No. 457 of 2006. By the said order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was filed for discharge of the Petitioner. It appears that the Petitioner had taken the stand that he was the informant in the case and, as such, he was not required be made an accused at subsequent stage.

After going through the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial Judge after examining number of paragraphs of the case diary and thereafter by assigning a detailed reason has rejected the petition for discharge. After going through the materials, the Court is satisfied that there is no ground for interference with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.

In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated.

Keeping in view the fact that in the case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1991 and the matter remained pending at the stage of charge for a long period, it is desirable to direct the court below to take effective steps so that the case may come to its logical end without any further delay.

With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected.