Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Shyam Murari Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 July, 2012

Author: Anjana Prakash

Bench: Anjana Prakash

        Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11489 of 2012 (2) dt.24-07-2012




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11489 of 2012
                     ===================================================
                     1. Shyam Murari Jha S/O Ashok Jha R/O Vill-Musapur, P.S.
                        Sarairanjan (Ghatho), Distt-Samastipur.
                     2. Rita Devi W/O Ashok Jha R/O Vill-Musapur, P.S. Sarairanjan
                        (Ghatho), Distt-Samastipur.
                     3. Ashok Jha @ Ashok Kumar Jha S/O Late Baidyanath Jha R/O
                        Vill-Musapur, P.S. Sarairanjan (Ghatho), Distt-Samastipur.
                     4. Lalbabu Jha S/O Late Baidyanath Jha R/O Vill-Musapur, P.S.
                        Sarairanjan (Ghatho), Distt-Samastipur.
                                                                   .... .... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                     1. The State of Bihar.
                     2. Ranjit Pathak S/O Vimalkant Pathak R/O Vill+P.O.-Gaura,
                        P.S.Teghra, Distt-Begusarai.
                                                              .... .... Opposite Party/s
                     ===================================================

                     CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH
                     ORAL ORDER

02.   24.07.2012

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners, informant and the State.

The Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 28.02.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samstipur in Sarairanjan (Ghatho) P.S. Case No. 07 of 2011 by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.

It has been submitted that the post-mortem examination report does not support the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the order of cognizance is bad.

I am unable to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner since these are matters which can only be appreciated effectively at the stage of trial. The application is dismissed.

(Anjana Prakash, J.) Vikash/-