Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1279 (PAT)

Brahmdeo Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2008-08-29

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2008
Judgment 1. The petitioner who is one of the F.I.R. named accused of Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 48 of 2003. registered under Sections 302, 364/34 I.P.C. has prayed for the quashing of the F.I.R. of the said case. 2. It appears that the aforesaid case was registered on the basis of a fardbeyan given by informant Sunita Devi at 12.30 P.M. on 9.3.2003 in respect of an occurrence alleged to have taken place earlier that day involving kidnapping of her husband Nawal Yadav and the killing of her nephew Surendra Yadav and his mother Nirmala Devi. 3. It appears that the police after due investigation submitted a final report against the petitioner whereas charge-sheet was submitted against the other co-accused persons and from paragraph 7 of the application it would appear that the final report was accepted by the learned Magistrate. In support of the submissions order dated 1.6.2004 has been appended to the petition as Annexure-2. 4. Annexure-2 reveals that order dated 1.6.2004 was passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.-1, Lakhisarai, in Sessions Case No. 571 of 2004 and it would also appear that while dismissing the protest petition filed by the informant/ complainant and bifurcating the cases of those accused against whom the investigation was going on and while consigning the case of the petitioner herein, he took cognizance for offences under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 I.P.C. against accused Bhunna Yadav. 5. the grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding what has been stated above the D.I.G. has directed for arrest of the petitioner and that the police had started reinvestigation of the case. 6. There is nothing on record nor any document or chit of paper had been filed by the petitioner to show that the D.I.G. had directed for arrest of the petitioner in connection with the said Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 48 of 2003 or that the police had started reinvestigation in the matter or that the Court had passed any order for such reinvestigation. 7. In this view of the matter I find no reason to quash the F.I.R. of Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 48 of 2003 at the instance of the petitioner specially when the final report so far as he is concerned has been accepted by the Court and the matter against him had been dropped. 8. 7. In this view of the matter I find no reason to quash the F.I.R. of Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 48 of 2003 at the instance of the petitioner specially when the final report so far as he is concerned has been accepted by the Court and the matter against him had been dropped. 8. In the result there is no merit in this application which is dismissed.