Abu Yusuf Jafri @ Yusuf Jafri & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 25 July, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53654 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1788 Year- 2012 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- MUZAFFARPUR

1. Abu Yusuf Jafri @ Yusuf Jafri Son Of Late Munshi Ali Baksh R/O Mohalla-
Rahmanganj, Masjid Chauk, P.S.- Nagar, District- Madhepura

2. Hasmun Nisha @ Hasbun Nisha Wife Of Abu Yusuf Jafri @ Jusuf Jafri R/O
Mohalla- Rahmanganj, Masjid Chauk, P.S.- Nagar, District- Madhepura

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Akbari Khatoon Wife Of Md. Arshad Akhtar, Daughter Of Md. Mumtaz R/O
Mohalla- Bakshi Colony, Ramraji Road, P.S.- Kazi Mohammadpur, District-
Muzaffarpur

…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anusuiya Jaiswal

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date: 25-07-2017

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner, by means of this application under section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have invoked the inherent

jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the order dated

16.11.2012, passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, East

Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No. 1788 of 2012, Tr. No. 2024 of

2013, whereby prima facie case has been found against petitioners

for the offence under sections 323, 498A, 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53654 of 2013 dt.25-07-2017

2/3

is that no offence against the petitioner is disclosed and the present

prosecution has been instituted with mala fide intention for the

purposes of harassment.

READ  An Application For Anticipatory ... vs 1. Rafijuk Islam on 19 July, 2017

Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the

application by contending that there are allegations against the

petitioner and no ground for quashing the entire proceedings is made

out.

From perusal of the material on record and looking into

the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is

made out against the petitioner. All the submissions made at bar

relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated

upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under section 482

Cr. P.C. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the

existence of sufficient ground to proceeding in the matter is required.

The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner call

for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately

gone into by the trial Court in this case. This Court does not deem it

proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before

the actual trial begins. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be

considered at this stage. Moreover, the petitioner has got a right of

discharge through a proper application for the said purpose and he is

free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53654 of 2013 dt.25-07-2017

3/3

before the trial Court. The prayer for quashing the impugned order is

refused.

The application accordingly stands dismissed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J)
Manish/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 01.05.2017
Uploading Date 27.07.2017
Transmission 27.07.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *