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.

Mahesh Prasad, and ors. Vs. State of Bihar, and anr.

Mahesh Prasad, and ors. vs State of Bihar, and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Sep 06, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916095

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.27777 OF 2005
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 147, 323, 380

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahesh Prasad, and ors.

Advocate Mr. Shivaji Pandey; Mr. Braj Nandan Tiwari; Mr. Prashant Kr. Choudhary, Advs.

Respondent

State of Bihar, and anr.

Advocate Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 147, 323, 380

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.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite parties and learned additional public prosecutor for the state.2. perused the records of c.w.j.c. no. 5543/2005 dismissed as in fructuous on 29.11.2007.3. the three applicants have preferred this application under section 482 of the criminal procedure code seeking quashing of the order dated 08.06.2005 passed by shri om prakash pandey, judicial magistrate, 1st class, patna in complaint case no. 599(c)/2005 taking cognizance for offences under sections 147, 323 and 380 of the indian penal code.4. as submitted from the bar and also reveal from the records that dispute between the parties was related with tenancy of the particular premises for commercial purposes, during tenancy, some differences cropped up relating to payment of rent and eviction etc. giving rise to filing of c.w.j.c. no. 5543/2005 by the opposite party no.2 and simultaneously he filed present instant complaint before the court of chief judicial magistrate, patna.5. subsequently, the dispute between the parties resolved as regard to question of eviction of the premises under tenancy and opposite party no.2 vacated the same, accordingly, this court was informed and c.w.j.c. no. 5543/2005 was dismissed.6. here, it is also submitted on the basis thereof that there is no necessity to continue the criminal proceeding before the court below in view of the settlement arrived between the parties.7. considering the facts and circumstances and submission made above which stands substantiated from the order of this court passed in c.w.j.c. no. 5543/2005. further proceeding of complaint case no. 599(c)/2005 before the court below shall be nothing but abuse of the process of law and sheer wastage of precious judicial time. accordingly, it is quashed and this application stands allowed.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite parties and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Perused the records of C.W.J.C. No. 5543/2005 dismissed as in fructuous on 29.11.2007.

3. The three applicants have preferred this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 08.06.2005 passed by Shri Om Prakash Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 599(C)/2005 taking cognizance for offences under sections 147, 323 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. As submitted from the Bar and also reveal from the records that dispute between the parties was related with tenancy of the particular premises for commercial purposes, during tenancy, some differences cropped up relating to payment of rent and eviction etc. giving rise to filing of C.W.J.C. No. 5543/2005 by the opposite party no.2 and simultaneously he filed present instant complaint before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.

5. Subsequently, the dispute between the parties resolved as regard to question of eviction of the premises under tenancy and opposite party no.2 vacated the same, accordingly, this court was informed and C.W.J.C. No. 5543/2005 was dismissed.

6. Here, it is also submitted on the basis thereof that there is no necessity to continue the criminal proceeding before the court below in view of the settlement arrived between the parties.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances and submission made above which stands substantiated from the order of this court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5543/2005. Further proceeding of complaint case No. 599(C)/2005 before the court below shall be nothing but abuse of the process of law and sheer wastage of precious judicial time. Accordingly, it is quashed and this application stands allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial