CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 10 PAT CK 0051

Subh Narayan Mishra and Shyam Bihari Mishra vs The State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 29 October 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Kumar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8365 of 2007
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 362 words

Rakesh Kumar, J.—On call, none appeared on behalf of the Petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. However, Sri A.M.P. Mehta learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State is present.

2.

The present petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 6.2.2007 passed by learned F.T.C. II, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 2006, arising out of Guthani P.S. Case No. 18 of 2003. By the said order, learned trial court has rejected the petition filed u/s 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge.

3.

The present case is in relation to offence committed u/s 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. After going through the order of rejection of discharge petition, it appears that while hearing discharge petition, learned F.T.C. II, Siwan had examined the case record and case diary and thereafter he had come to the conclusion that the witnesses have supported the allegation against the Petitioners in the case diary and there were sufficient materials available on the record against them. The court is of the view that while hearing a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that too against the order of cognizance or order of rejection of discharge petition in a serious police case, it is not required for this Court to examine and peruse the entire case diary. The learned trial court has examined the same and thereafter rejected the discharge petition. The Court is of the opinion that while rejecting the discharge petition, learned F.T.C. II has committed no error.

4.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the Petitioners.

5.

Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.

6.

In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay dated 30.3.2007 stands automatically vacated.

In this case earlier case diary was received, which is lying with the present petition. Office is directed to remit back the case diary along with a copy of this order to the court below.