IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.50026 of 2013
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -326 Year- 2010 Thana -NALANDA COMPLAINT CASE District-
1. Prof. Vidya Sagar Prasad S/O Late Bindeshwari Prasad Resident Of Hilsa (Town),
Police Station- Hilsa, District- Nalanda.
2. Manorama Devi @ Manorama Sinha W/O Prof. Vidya Sagar Prasad Resident Of
Hilsa (Town), Police Station- Hilsa, District- Nalanda …. …. Petitioners
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Madu Priya D/O Arun Kumar Sinha Resident Of Mohalla- Bhainsasur, Near
Telephone, Exchange, Police Station- Bihar Sharif, District- Nalanda.
…. …. Opposite Parties
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, APP
For the opp.party no.2 : Mr Rana Balgit Singh, Advocate
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and the
opposite party no.2.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the
allegations made out against the petitioners to are false as the
complainant has sustained injuries by falling in the bathroom and
taking advantage of such injuries she has implicated them in the
false case. It is also submitted that the petitioners are aged persons
and suffering from various illness.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposes the
prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. It is also pointed out by the
learned counsel that vide orders dated 14.3.2018 and 6.4.2018,
passed in Cr.Misc.Nos. 10759/2012 and 49887/2013 respectively,
Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.50026 of 2013 dt.11-04-2018
this Court has dismissed quashing applications of other accused
persons filed for quashing of cognizance order dated 11.6.2010.
Defence of the petitioners cannot be looked into by this
Court. It is also noticed that merely because the petitioners are
suffering from some illness, the criminal proceedings wherein
allegations have been levelled against them by the complainant,
cannot be quashed by this Court exercising jurisdiction under section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even the plea of the
petitioners that they are ill, is taken to be true. This Court finds
sufficient material in the complaint before the learned Magistrate to
arrive at the conclusion regarding taking of the cognizance. As such,
this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 11.6.2010, wherein
cognizance has been taken in Complaint Case No. 326C of 2010 for
the offence under sections 498A, 406, 323, 379, 504/34 of the Indian
Considering the aforesaid submissions, the petition filed
under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.4.2018