Patna High Court - Orders
Jagdish Pandit vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 1 April, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1565 of 2011
===================================================
Jagdish Pandit Son of Late Sattan Pandit Resident of Village -
English Chichroun, P.S. Akbarnagar, District - Bhagalpur.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dwarka Pandit Son of Late Dukhan Pandit
3. Rukmani Devi Wife of Dwarka Pandit, both are resident of
Village - Laluchak, P.S. - Ishachak, District - Bhagalpur
4. Arbind Pandit Son of Late Bahadur Pandit
5. Rani Devi Wife of Arbind Pandit, both are resident of Village
- Halampur, P.S. - Jamalpur, District Munger.
.... .... Opposite Parties
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
11. 01-04-2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Brij Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for opp. party nos. 2 to 5.
The petitioner, in the present petition, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 07-10-2010 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred to as "Addl. Sessions Judge") in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2010. By the said order, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed on behalf of prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C."), whereby, a prayer was made to summon opp. party nos. 2 to 5 to face trial as accused alongwith one accused, who was facing Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1565 of 2011 (11) dt.01-04-2014 2/3 trial in the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the very inception, police was in collusion with the accused persons and as such, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur and only by intervention of Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, an F.I.R. was got lodged. Thereafter, the case was registered as Ishakchak P.S. Case No. 74 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code against five accused persons, which include opp. party nos. 2 to 5 besides husband of the deceased. After investigation, police submitted final report and thereafter, the case has proceeded on the basis of protest-cum-complaint petition. It has further been submitted that even during investigation, in the case diary, sufficient materials were brought on record, but final report was submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since murder had occurred at the place of in-laws' of the deceased, there was no question of any eye-witness, but during the trial, witnesses have categorically named opp. party nos. 2 to 5 as accused and as such, a petition was filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning them as accused to face trial. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1565 of 2011 (11) dt.01-04-2014 3/3 However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rejected the same in a mechanical manner, which has been challenged in the present case.
Sri Bakshi S.R.P.Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of opp. party nos. 2 to 5 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, while considering the petition filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of prosecution, had examined the evidences on record and was of the opinion that there was no prima facie case for summoning them as accused and by assigning detailed reasons, he had rejected the same.
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that there was no cogent reason for summoning private opp.parties i.e. opp. party nos. 2 to 5 to face trial. I do not find any defect in the impugned order.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay