Patna High Court - Orders
Roop Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 28 February, 2013
Author: V. Nath
Bench: V Nath
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40041 of 2011 (3) dt.28-02-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.40041 of 2011
======================================================
1. Roop Singh, Son of Jaswant Singh, at present posted as Vice President,
Brawn Laboratories Ltd having Its Office At C-64,Lajpat Nagar-I, New
Delhi-110024. --------------------------------------------- Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Rajesh Kumar Sahay, Son of Late Jitendra Nath Sahay, Resident of
Gokul Path, Patel Nagar, P.S-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna-Opposite Parties.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V NATH
ORAL ORDER
3 28-02-2013Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.11.10, by which the Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 504, and 418 IPC in a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 2561 (c)/2010.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offence under Section 323 IPC as alleged in the complaint case is not being made out on the bare reading of the complaint. The learned counsel has placed Section 323 IPC as well as the complaint petition to bolster his submissions. It has been urged that the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind to the facts as well as to the records that there was no evidence to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40041 of 2011 (3) dt.28-02-2013 establish injury on the complainant to bring home the charge under Section 323 IPC. It has been further contended that the relationship of employer and employee is admitted between the complainant and the accused persons and the complainant has admittedly filed a case before the appropriate authority for realization of his dues. On the basis of these submissions the prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 24.11.10.
4. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I find from the perusal of the complaint that the offences as alleged against the petitioner are made out and there is no illegality in the impugned order taking cognizance. I hold that it is not a fit case for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order taking cognizance.
5. In the result the quashing application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V. Nath, J) Nitesh/-