Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 161 (PAT)

Neeraj Sinha @ Neeraj Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2007-01-22

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Complaint Case No. 1261/03 thereby and thereunder he has taken cognizance under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and four others including the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. D.P. Mandal. 2. It appears from the record that the Opposite Party No. 2 was accused in Sessions Trial No. 567/92 arising out of Banjaria RS. Case No. 30/92. In course of trial a Medical Board was constituted to ascertain the age of Opposite Party no. 2. Vide Medical Board report dated 4.9.1993, the Board ascertained the age of Opposite Party No. 2 as between 16 to 17 years. However, later on again the trial court referred the matter to the Medical Board to reassess the age of Opposite Party No. 2 after giving specific findings on certain points. 3. In view of the directions of the trial court the Medical Board was constituted consisting of three doctors including this petitioner and Chief Medical Officer, Dr. D.R Mandal. The Board vide its report dated 25.3.1994 assessed the age of Opposite Party No. 2 as between 18 to 19 years. 4. In course of the trial again Opposite Party No. 2 raised the matter of juvenile which was rejected twice vide order dated 26.6.2002 and 11.3.2003. 5. Thereafter the Opposite Party No, 2 filed a complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari impleading this petitioner, the Chief Medical Officer and Dr. R.N. Singh as accused and alleged that the second report was collusive and frivolous as he was actually not produced before the Medical Board. 6. First of all the lower court dismissed the complaint petition after inquiry under Sec.202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 28.8.2003. However, on the directions of the revisional court cognizance has been taken vide order dated 21.3.2005. 7. Earlier Dr. R.N. Singh moved the Hon ble Court for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 21.3.2005 through Cr. Misc. No. 17558 of 2005. The same was heard and disposed of vide order dated 13.11.2006. The cognizance taken against Dr. R.N. Singh was quashed, so far it relates to him. The case of this petitioner stands on similar footing. 7. Earlier Dr. R.N. Singh moved the Hon ble Court for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 21.3.2005 through Cr. Misc. No. 17558 of 2005. The same was heard and disposed of vide order dated 13.11.2006. The cognizance taken against Dr. R.N. Singh was quashed, so far it relates to him. The case of this petitioner stands on similar footing. He has been impleaded in this case as he was one of the members of the Medical Board who submitted the report in Sessions Trial with regard to the age of Opposite Party No. 2. 8. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that cognizance of similarly situated person has already been quashed, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.3.2005 is quashed, so far it relates to the petitioner also.