Balram Prasad Jaiswal & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 March, 2010

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Patna High Court - Orders

Balram Prasad Jaiswal & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 March, 2010

Bench: Rakesh Kumar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               Cr.Misc. No.46498 of 2007

                  1. BALRAM PRASAD JAISWAL , Son of Sri Banwari Lal
                     Jaiswal, resident of Mundera Bazar, Chaurichaura, P.S.
                     Chaurichaura, District-Gorakhpur( U.P.)
                  2. Pramod Kumar, Son of Sri Rama Shankar Prasad, resident
                     of Mohalla-Naya Bazar Galla Mandi, Siwan, P.S. Town
                     Siwan, P.O. and District- Siwan
                                                ------------------- Petitioners
                                                       Versus


                  1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
                  2. Santi Gupta, Wife of Sri Siv Narain Gupta, resident of
                     Patehari Gali, Nai Bazar, Mairwa, District-Siwan
                                                                -- Opp.Parties.
                                         -----------

                    For the petitioners : Sri Ravi Bhushan Verma, Advocate.
                    For Opp.Party No.2 : S/Sri Akhileshwar Pd.Singh .
                                             Vikash Kumar, Advocates.
                    For the State       : Mr. Ram Chandra Singh, A.P.P.
                                        ------------
04   12-03-2010

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Opp.Party No.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance dated 18.6.2007 for offence under Sections 420,467, 468 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in Mairwa P.S. Case No.01 of 2007, Tr.No.3959 of 2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance, has submitted that in -2- this case, a compromise petition was also filed before the court below. He further submits that petitioner no.2 is own brother of opp.Party no.2, who is the informant of the present case, and the petitioner no.1 is brother-in-law of the informant. He also submits that it was a complete family dispute and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case.

The order of cognizance, which has been passed by the learned court below, appears to have contained no infirmity. In this case on the basis of written information given by Opp.Party no.2, police instituted a case for offences under Section 420,467,468, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code . Perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that the informant was cheated by the petitioners. The police after investigating the case and collecting the materials submitted chargesheet and on the basis of materials available on record the court below has taken cognizance of the offence.

Since the petitioners have approached at the initial stage of a case, it is not desirable for this Court to interfere with the matter at this stage. I do not find that the petitioners have come out with an exceptional case -3- warranting exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

I do not find any merit in this case and petition stands rejected.

( Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders