Patna High CourtGokul Pathak vs The State Of Bihar on 11 October, 2017Author:Sanjay KumarBench:Sanjay KumarIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

                    Criminal Miscellaneous No.19689 of 2014
            Arising Out of PS.Case No. -45 Year- 2013 Thana -RAHIKA District- MADHUBANI
===========================================================
1. Gokul Pathak Son of Late Yugshwar Pathak Resident of Village - Basauli, P.S.-
Rahika, District -Madhubani

                                                                     .... ....   Petitioner/s

                                         Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. (Kashi Nath Sah) Shashi Nath Sah, S/o Satyanarayan Sah, Resident of Village-
   Basauli, P.S.- Rahika, Dist- Madhubani.

                                                  .... .... Opposite Party/s
===========================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     : Mr. Ratnakar Jha
     For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENTDate: 11-10-2017


                 This application underSection 482of the Code of Criminal

   Procedure has been filed to quash the order dated 02.12.2013 passed

   by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in G.R. No. 990

   of 2013 arising out of Rahika P.S. Case No. 45 of 2013 whereby and

   whereunder the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence

   underSections 436and427/34of the Indian Penal Code against the

   petitioner.2.              Heard both sides and perused the record.3.              It appears that on the written report of the Opposite Party
 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19689 of 2014 dt.11-10-20172/3No. 2, a police case vide Rahika P.S. Case No. 45 of 2013 was

        registered underSections 435and427/34of the Indina Penal Code. It

        has been alleged that this petitioner hurled threat to the informant to

        remove his shop from his locality and on 21.05.2013, when he after

        closing his shop was returning to his house, this petitioner and other

        co-accused sprinkled petrol and put his shop on fire causing loss to

        the articles kept in the shop worth Rs. 45,000/-. In course of enquiry,

        the witnesses have supported the allegation of putting the shop of the

        informant on fire by this petitioner. The statement of the witnesses is

        recorded at paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 19 of the case diary. The

        police have also found sign of burning of shop at the place of

        occurrence vide paragraph-9 of the case diary. After investigation,

        police submitted charge-sheet against the son of this petitioner for the

        offence underSections 435and427/34of the Indian Penal Code. The

        learned Magistrate, however, considering the allegation of putting the

        shop on fire against both the accuseds has taken cognizance against

        them for the offence underSections 436and427/34of the Indian

        Penal Code. The defence of the petitioner that he is physically

        handicapped and further that the witnesses are interested and hearsay

        witnesses cannot be taken into consideration at this stage.4.               In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any

        merit in this application requiring interference in the impugned order
           Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19689 of 2014 dt.11-10-20173/3under inherent jurisdiction. This application is accordingly dismissed.(Sanjay Kumar, J)
ajay gupta/-AFR/NAFR       NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.10.2017
Transmission 18.10.2017
Date