Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 973 (PAT)

Amar Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-27

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the midst of hearing filed a supplementary affidavit. Keep it on the record. 2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.9.1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in Barhat P. S. Case no.39 of 1999 (G. R. Case No.373 of 1999 ). By the said order the learned Magistrate differing with the recommendation of the police report took cognizance of the offences under sections 379/34 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during investigation no material has been collected by the police and the land in question was a public land. He further submits that since there was dispute in respect of title of the property in question, in the case section 379 of the Indian Penal Code would not apply. He also submits that a case is pending before the d. C. L. R. , Jamui.3. However, after some argument learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to raise all the points at the stage of charge. 4. Prayer is allowed. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as indicated above. 5. If such a petition is filed at an appropriate stage, it is expected that the court below will examine the same and without being prejudiced by this order will pass order in accordance with law. 6. In view of dismissal of this petition, the interim order dated 17.2.2000 whereby this court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceeding in Barhat p. S. Case No.39 of 1999 pending in the court of Sri S. P. Dubey, judicial Magistrate, Jamui, shall remain stayed, stands automatically vacated. 7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. 8. In this case lower records were called for and the same were received and are lying along with the records of the present case. The office is directed to remit back the lower court records to the court below forthwith.