P.C. on 9.4.2005 to the effect that the case was totally false and Gopal Singh had been killed for property disputes.
36335 of 2008 for quashing the order dated 2.8.2008 which has been allowed by the High Court on the ground that second Protest Petition was number maintainable and the appellant ought to have pursued the first Protest Petition dated 4.4.2005.
When the investigation in pursuance of both the FIRs was pending, the appellant filed Protest Petition on 4.4.2005, but did number pursue the matter further.
147/2004 dated 6.12.2004 was lodged by the appellant naming Ramakant Singh and Anand Kumar Singh alongwith 15 other persons under Sections 396/398 IPC.
An FIR No.
The police reached the place of occurrence at about 3.00 AM i.e. about 2 hours after the occurrence.
Investigation in pursuance of both the reports ensued.
The High Court further companymitted an error observing that the Magistrates order of summoning the respondent No.1 was vague and it was number clear as in which Protest Petition the order had been passed.
It was on 22.9.2005, the appellant filed a second Protest Petition in respect of the Final Report dated 9.4.2005.
supra , wherein the Protest Petition dated 19.3.1976 was entertained by the Magistrate issuing direction to the Officer in Charge of the Khanakul Police Station under Section 156 3 Cr.
Being aggrieved, the respondent Anand Kumar Singh filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.
The Officer in Charge of the said police station did number carry out any investigation on the ground that the incident had occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said police station.
After companypleting investigation in the Report dated 6.12.2004, the police filed Final Report under Section 173 Cr.
The second petition was the only Protest Petition which companyld be entertained as it had been filed subsequent to filing the Final Report.
The second Protest Petition filed by the same companyplainant on 23.3.1976 was entertained by the learned Magistrate.
On the companytrary, Shri Awanish Sinha and Shri Gopal Singh, learned companynsel appearing for the respondents have vehemently opposed the appeal companytending that the second petition was number maintainable and the appellant ought to have pursued the first Protest Petition.
on 29.8.2005 against the appellant, Bhola Singh, son of companyplainant and others.
Hence, this appeal.
Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate that the so called first Protest Petition having been filed prior to filing the Final Report was number maintainable and just has to be ignored.
The matter stood companycluded after trial in favour of the accused persons therein.
151/2004 was lodged on 29.12.2004 in respect of the same incident with the allegations that the present appellant, Bhola Singh, son of the second companyplainant and Shankar Thakur, the maternal uncle of Bhola Singh had killed Gopal Singh as the accused wanted to grab the immovable property.
After investigating the other FIR filed by Kameshwar Singh, father of the deceased, charge sheet was filed under Sections 302, 302/34, 506 IPC etc.
P.C. Appropriate orders were passed therein and in pursuance of which FIR No.
P.C. to make the investigation and submit the report to the companyrt companycerned by 10.4.1976.
However, Kameshwar Singh, the real brother of the appellant and father of Gopal Singh, the deceased, approached the companyrt by filing a case under Section 156 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter called Cr.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.
The companyrt did number pass any order on the said petition.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that A dacoity was companymitted in the house of present appellant Shivshankar Singh and his brother Kameshwar Singh on 6.12.2004 wherein Gopal Singh son of Kameshwar Singh was killed by the dacoits and lots of valuable properties were looted.
36335 of 2008, by which the companynizance taken by the Magistrate vide order dated 2.8.2008 against the respondent number2 under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter called IPC has been quashed.
After companysidering the same and examining a very large number of witnesses, the Magistrate took companynizance and issued summons to respondent Anand Kumar Singh and others vide order dated 2.8.2008.
