Raj Kumar Gupta @ Raj Kumar Gupta vs State Of Bihar on 3 May, 2010

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court

Raj Kumar Gupta @ Raj Kumar Gupta vs State Of Bihar on 3 May, 2010

Bench: Rakesh Kumar

                  Criminal Miscellaneous No.20513 OF 1999
                                  ----
                In the matter of an application under Section
                482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
                                  ----
              RAJ KUMAR GUPTA @ RAJ KUMAR GUPTA S/O SRI RAM PUKAR
              SHARAFF, RESIDENT OF LAXMI APARTMENT, CHITRA GUPTA
              NAGAR, P.S. PATRAKARNAGAR, DISTRICT PATNA.
                        ...          ...     PETITIONER
                                 Versus
          1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
          2. FYAZ AHMAD KHAN, INSPECTOR OF POLICE-OFFICER IN
              CHARGE, KADAMKUAN (PATRAKARNAGAR)P.S., PATNA.
                        ...          ...    OPPOSITE PARTIES.
                                  ----
          For the Petitioner      : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Adv.
          For the State           : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P.
                                  ----
                              P R E S E N T

                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
                                   ----


Rakesh Kumar,J.                The    sole   petitioner,    while     invoking

                  inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section

                  482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed

                  for quashing of order dated 10.8.1999 passed by

                  Shri D.N. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Patna. By

                  the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken

                  cognizance for the offences under Sections 177,

                  182, 211, 120B, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal

                  Code in connection with Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.254

                  of 1999.

                               2.     Short fact of the case is that on

                  3.5.1999

, the Investigating Officer of Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No.247 of 1999 drew an F.I.R. on his self statement disclosing therein that the -2- informant of Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No.247 of 1999 in conspiracy with other accused persons, had filed a false F.I.R. with a sole object to illegally get insurance amount from the Insurance Company. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant of Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No.247 of 1999 had made a false statement in the said case regarding commission of robbery in his jewelry shop, namely, 'Bahurani' situated in Kankarbagh area, Patna. The informant of Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No.247 of 1999 had disclosed that while committing robbery, the accused persons had assaulted him from the butt of a pistol and after committing the crime, the accused persons fled away and while, fleeing away, they also opened fire. However, during investigation of Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No.247 of 1999, it transpired that an accused namely Mantu Kumar and other accused persons in connivance with the informant, had played a Drama and a false and concocted case of robbery was registered. After registering F.I.R. i.e. Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.254 of 1999, the police investigated the same and thereafter, on 28.7.1999, a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and one another namely Amod Kumar @ -3- Mantu for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 177, 182, 211 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. On perusal of the record, it appears that while investigation in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.254 of 1999 was going on, a protest-cum- complaint petition was filed by the informant on 16.7.1999. It appears that while, after investigation, the police was going to submit charge sheet, which was submitted on 28.7.1999, a protest petition was filed by the petitioner on 16.7.1999 in a well design manner. However, after perusing the charge sheet and examining the case diary, the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, has taken cognizance for the offences as mentioned above.

4. I have examined the impugned order as well as materials available on record of the case. I do not find any defect in the order of cognizance. Moreover, at this initial or interlocutory stage of the criminal case, it is not advisable for this Court to interfere. Besides this, there is material on record to suggest that prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and thereafter, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order.

-4-

5. I do not find any merit in the present case and, accordingly, the petition stands rejected.

6. In the present case, on 30.9.1999, this Court had passed an interim order that in the meantime, further proceeding in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.254 of 1999 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Patna shall remain stayed. Subsequently, the present case was admitted on 17.7.2000 and while admitting the case, this Court had directed that during the pendency of this application, interim order dated 30.9.1999 shall continue.

7. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated.

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.

( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 3.5.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court