Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 637 (PAT)

Devi Dayal Singh v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-06

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar and j. JJ. 1. On repeated call, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. 2. Seven petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 12.11.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Patna in Sessions Trial No.627 of 1997. By the said order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed under Sec.227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge of petitioners. ON perusal of the petition, it appears that the petitioners had taken a stand that on an allegation of opening firing by one Raj Kumar Singh an F. I. R. vide Phulwarisharif P. S. Case No.257 of 1993 was lodged. It has been asserted in the petition that in the said case, accused Raj Kumar Singh had fired which resulted in injury to one person and thereafter, he was chased by the mob and after chase, he was apprehended. After apprehension, he was assaulted. On information, police arrived and accused Raj Kumar Singh was arrested in injured condition and F. I. R. vide Phulwarisharif P. S. Case No.257 of 1993 was registered for the offence under Sections 326, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. It has been alleged that from the possession of Raj Kumar Singh, fire arm was also recovered. 3. It appears from the present petition that due to injuries, accused Raj Kumar Singh succumbed and thereafter police instituted an another case vide Phulwarisharif P. S. Case No.258 of 1993 for offence under Sec.304 of the Indian Penal Code against several unknown persons. 4. Seven days after the registration of the F. I. R. , the brother of deceased Raj Kumar Singh filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No.669 C of 1993. In the said case, after examining the complainant on S. A. and other witnesses the Magistrate took cognizance and finally case was committed to the court of Sessions. At the stage of charge, the petitioners, who are accused in Sessions Trial No.627 of 1997, filed a petition under Sec.227 of the Cr. P. C. for their discharge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patna discussing the evidences available on record by a detailed and speaking order rejected the discharge petition vide its order dated 12.11.1998. 5. At the stage of charge, the petitioners, who are accused in Sessions Trial No.627 of 1997, filed a petition under Sec.227 of the Cr. P. C. for their discharge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patna discussing the evidences available on record by a detailed and speaking order rejected the discharge petition vide its order dated 12.11.1998. 5. I have examined the order dated 12.11.1998 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge petition and also examined materials available on record. I do not find any defect in the order whereby discharge petition was rejected. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 7. By order dated 5.8.1999, the present petition was admitted for hearing. While admitting the case, this Court directed that further proceedings as regards petitioners in Sessions Trial No.627 of 1996 in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Patna, shall remain stayed. 8. In view of rejection of the present petition, order of stay stands automatically vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith.