SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ashok Kumar Mishra @ Ashok Mishra vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 15 November, 2017


Criminal Miscellaneous No.51036 of 2014

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -276 Year- 2014

Ashok Kumar Mishra @ Ashok Mishra son of Rama Nand Mishra @ Ram Mishra,
Resident of Village- Auliabad, Police Station Bihpur (Jhandapur), District-

Bhagalpur …. …. Petitioner
1. The State of Bihar

2. Rakesh Kumar @ Pintu Rai son of Umesh Chand Rai, Resident of Village-
Auliabad, Police Station Bihpur (Jhandapur), District- Bhagalpur
…. …. Opposite Parties

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bharat Lal, APP

Date: 15-11-2017

Counsel for the petitioner and the State are present.
The petitioner prays to quash order dated 12.11.2014, by
which the court below has taken cognizance for offence under
section 406 IPC, against the petitioner in Bihpur (Jhandapur) Police
Station Case No. 276 of 2014, dated 21.8.2014.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant FIR has
been lodged against him as the counter blast to the lodging of Bihpur
(Jhandapur) Police Station Case No. 154 of 2014 dated 20.5.2014
u/s 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 447, 379, 387, 504, 506
IPC by the
petitioner against two brothers and 5/6 unknown persons, opposite
party no.2 is one of those two brothers. He submits that there is no
document to show that the amount of Rs. 3 lacs, which formed the
genesis of the case, was actually taken by the petitioner (accused).
Besides this, prior to the lodging of the FIR in question, one another
case bearing Complaint case no. 423/2014 has also been lodged by
the same informant against the petitioner and three others. A copy of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51036 of 2014 dt.15-11-2017


the complaint is contained in Annexure 3. Counsel for the petitioner
drew the attention of the Court to the order dated 11.8.2014,
whereby Complaint case no. 423/2014 was dismissed for non-
appearance of the complaint.

Having heard the parties and on going through the
materials available on the record, I find that there is a case and
counter case between the parties. However, in the case in hand, FIR
had been lodged against three persons including the petitioner, and
after investigation charge sheet was filed only against the petitioner.
Thereafter, on perusing the material on record, the court of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, took cognizance of the offence
section 406 of the IPC vide order dated 12.1.2014. I find that
the order taking cognizance does not suffer from infirmity, as such,
the quashing petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)


Uploading Date 18.11.2017
Transmission 18.11.2017

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation