Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ashok Kumar, and anr. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.

Ashok Kumar, and anr. vs State of Bihar, and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Aug 24, 2010
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916015

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4052 OF 2002
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[P. SATHASIVAM ; H.L. GOKHALE, J.J.] - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 - Punishment for murder -- Sunil Yadav s/o Musafir Yadav was instituted. Sunil Yadav was instituted. On 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at Nawada Sadar Hospital, SI Anil Kumar Gupta recorded the statement of Sunil Yadav s/o Musafir Yadav an...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 379, 406, 420

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar, and anr.

Respondent

State of Bihar, and anr.

Advocate Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 379, 406, 420

Excerpt

[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he had died. informant-naresh yadav (pw-9) informant-sunil yadav (a9 in fir 11/97) brahmdeo yadav, darogi mahto, sunil s/o bale yadav, maho yadav, kuldeep yadav, bale yadav, suraj yadav, shiv nandan yadav, sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav, sudhir yadav and paro mahto, total 11 persons forming a group came there and surrounded them. brahmdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto and maho yadav were armed with rifle. bale yadav, kuldeep yadav, shiv nandan yadav and suraj yadav were armed with gandassa. kuldeep yadav gave gandassa blow to munshi yadav......ist class, patna in complaint case no.1383(c) of 2000. by the said order, the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under section 379 of the indian penal code and directed for issuance of summons against the petitioners.4. short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of chief judicial magistrate, patna, which was registered as complaint case no.1383(c) of 2000. in the complaint petition, it was alleged that on 15.3.2000, the complainant at his residence had prepared a cheque for an amount of rs.10,000/-, but he had not filled up the name, in whose favour, cheque was to be issued. in the meanwhile, petitioner no.1 arrived for some work. due to some reason for few minutes, the complainant went inside the house and after about 8-10 minutes, when he returned back, he neither found the accused- petitioner no.1 in his room nor did he find the cheque, which was signed by the complainant. it was alleged that with a view to commit theft, the accused persons had taken the cheque. thereafter, the said cheque was deposited in the bank account of accused no.2 in bank of baroda, chapra. on the aforesaid allegation, the complaint was filed and thereafter, during enquiry, two witnesses were also examined. after conducting enquiry, the learned magistrate, by its order dated 22.9.2000, took cognizance of offence under section 379 of the indian penal code against the petitioners.5. aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 22.9.2000 passed in complaint case no.1383(c) of 2000; the petitioners approached this court by filing the present petition, which was finally admitted on 26.2.2004. while admitting, it was directed that during the pendency of the application, further proceeding in complaint case no.1383(c) of 2000 pending in the court of judicial magistrate, ist class, patna shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. perusal of the present petition and its enclosures reveals that prior to filing of the.....

Full Judgment

1. When the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment nor any one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2, despite the fact that the opposite party no.2 had entered his appearance through his advocate.

2. I have heard Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and I have also perused the materials available on record.

3. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 22.9.2000 passed by Shri Hussain Nawaz, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1383(C) of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons against the petitioners.

4. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was registered as Complaint Case No.1383(C) of 2000. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that on 15.3.2000, the complainant at his residence had prepared a cheque for an amount of Rs.10,000/-, but he had not filled up the name, in whose favour, cheque was to be issued. In the meanwhile, petitioner no.1 arrived for some work. Due to some reason for few minutes, the complainant went inside the house and after about 8-10 minutes, when he returned back, he neither found the accused- petitioner no.1 in his room nor did he find the cheque, which was signed by the complainant. It was alleged that with a view to commit theft, the accused persons had taken the cheque. Thereafter, the said cheque was deposited in the bank account of Accused No.2 in Bank of Baroda, Chapra. On the aforesaid allegation, the complaint was filed and thereafter, during enquiry, two witnesses were also examined. After conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate, by its order dated 22.9.2000, took cognizance of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

5. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance dated 22.9.2000 passed in Complaint Case No.1383(C) of 2000; the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was finally admitted on 26.2.2004. While admitting, it was directed that during the pendency of the application, further proceeding in Complaint case No.1383(C) of 2000 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. Perusal of the present petition and its enclosures reveals that prior to filing of the present complaint petition; the petitioner no.2 had filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.896 of 2000. In the complaint petition, it was alleged that the complainant of the present case (opposite party no.2) had given a cheque of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioners in lieu of purchase of some jewelries from the petitioner no.2. It was alleged that when the cheque was presented in the Bank by its deposit in his Bank account in the Bank of Baroda, same was dis-honoured and, accordingly, complaint case was filed under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal code and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complaint was subsequently referred to the police and police thereafter registered an F.I.R. vide Chapra P.S. Case No.170 of 2000 and in that case, police also submitted charge sheet against the complainant of the present case.

6. On the basis of averments made in the present petition as well as in the Complaint Case No.869 of 2000, which was lodged by the petitioner no.2, the court is of the opinion that the complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No.1383(C) of 2000 was filed by the complainant in a complete dis-honest manner and with a view to create a defence in a case in which the complainant himself was made accused. Firstly, the complainant issued a cheque without having any amount in his Bank Account to the petitioners and when he apprehended that he may be made accused for dis-honour of the cheque, the present complaint petition was filed by the opposite party no.2-complainant.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the court is of the opinion that the present complaint petition was filed by opposite party no.2 maliciously and with oblique motive and as such the entire proceeding as well as order dated 22.9.2000 passed in Complaint Case No.1383(C) of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna are liable to be set aside and, accordingly, the order of cognizance as well as entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.1383(C) of 2000 are hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial