Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 266 (PAT)

Mahadeo Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-06

GHANSHYAM PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. This application under sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 12.9.2006 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Patna City in Sessions Trial No. 558 of 1995 thereby and thereunder he has rejected the petition dated 15.2.2003 filed by the petitioners for prosecution of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan lodged by opposite party no. 2, Kadam Kuan PS. Case No. 7 of 1994 was instituted against the petitioners. In course of investigation, the police examined one Baleshwar Yadav, son of Kali Yadav as witness. 4. In course of the trial, one Baleshwer Yadav S/o Mukhali Yadav @Kali Yadav was produced before the court for examination. Immediately a petition dated 16.1.2001 was filed on behalf of the defence/petitioners alleging therein that the witness is imposter and not the real Baleshwa Yadav S/O Late Kali Yadav. Baleshwar Yadav who was examined by the police in course of investigation has already died. Prayer was already made to prosecute both Baleshwar Yadav as well as the informant who are opposite party nos. 2 and 3. As a result Baleshwar Yadav, opposite party no. 3 was not examined. The matter was enquired by the police. The police vide its report dated 20.1.2001 reported that Baleshwar Yadav, son of Late Kali Yadav had already died a year before. The opposite parties filed rejoinder alongwith certificate of Mukhiya to show that Baleshwar Yadav, son of Kali Yadav who died was a person of another village and not of the village in question. 5. On 15.2.2003 again, the petitioners filed application with prayer to lodge prosecution against the opposite parties which has been rejected vide impugned order. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a clear case of impersonation and, therefore, the learned lower court ought to have lodged case against opposite parties. 7. However, from the facts stated above as well as in the impugned order, it would be clear that death of Baleshwar Yadav, who was examined during course of investigation itself in dispute. The prosecution has also filed document against the claim of the petitioners. Baleshwar Yadav, opposite party no. 3 himself has also filed affidavit dated 23.9.2004 stating therein that he was real Baleshwar Yadav who was examined by the police. Apart from it, he was also not examined in the Court. The prosecution has also filed document against the claim of the petitioners. Baleshwar Yadav, opposite party no. 3 himself has also filed affidavit dated 23.9.2004 stating therein that he was real Baleshwar Yadav who was examined by the police. Apart from it, he was also not examined in the Court. No any false statement was given by him. Therefore, mere filing of Hazari does not make any offence. The court below has rightly rejected the petitions filed by the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, this application is rejected. The court below is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.