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

Sri Krishna Ray & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 7 May, 2010

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                       Cr.Misc. No.14839 of 2008
                    1. Sri Krishna Ray, Son of Ram Prasad Ray.
                    2. Butan Roy alias Surendra Ray, Son of Sri Krishna Ray.
                    3. Lilawati Devi, wife of Sri Krishna Ray.
                    4. Soni Kumari, D/O Sri Krishna Ray.
                    5. Ram Prasad Ray, son of late Babudhan Ray.
                    6. Sateyendra Ray, Son of Ram Prasad Ray.
                       Original resident of Village- Koel, P.S. Charpokhari, District-
                       Bhojpur, Ara, at present permanently residing at Manaspur Jhopri
                       Bandle at permanently residing at Manaspur
                       Jhopri,Bandle(Durgasthan, P.S. Chinsurah, District-Hoogli, West
                       Bengal................................................................Petitioners.
                                                       -Versus-
                   1. The State of Bihar.
                   2. Smt. Juli Ray, Wife of Jogindar Ray, Manaspur Bandle, P.S. Chin
                        Surah, District- Hoogly, West Bengal, at present R/O Village-
                        Birampur(Kritpura), P.S. Koilwar, District- Bhojpur...Opposite
                                                                                     Parties.

                                                       -----------

2.   07.05.2010

. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

In the present application the quashing of the First Information Report of Charpokhari P.S. Case No. 150 of 2007 registered under Sections 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been prayed for.

It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after investigation the cognizance has been taken. Hence, the petitioners want to challenge the cognizance order in an appropriate proceeding on the ground that for the similar allegation the Annexure-2 being Chin Surah P.S. Case No. 01 of 2008 has been registered in the 2 district of Hoogli in the State of West Bengal. Subsequent to the present First Information Report when the informant realized that the present First Information Report is not maintainable in the State of Bihar. I am not interfering only on the ground that the investigation is over and the cognizance has been taken.

Let the petitioners challenge the cognizance order in the appropriate proceeding.

With these observations, this application is disposed off.

U.K.                                             (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)