Mandan Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2025

0
102

Patna High Court

Mandan Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2025

Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha

Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44268 of 2021
               Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Rohtas
======================================================
Mandan Mishra, Son of Shobha Kant Mishra, Resident of Village - Kasraur
Basauli, P.O.- Kasraur, P.S. - Ghanshyampur, District - Darbhanga.
                                                                ... ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State of Bihar
                                                         ... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s     :         Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-01-2025

              The present petition has been filed for quashing of

 the order dated 20.02.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial

 Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, whereby the learned

 jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance against the

 petitioner for the offence under Sections 175 and 176 of the

 Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

              2. The prosecution case in short is that the Officer

 Incharge, Agrer Police Station forwarded a written complaint,

 whereafter the prosecution report was submitted against the

 petitioner in connection with Sasaram (Agrer) P.S. Case

 No.382 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and

 409 of the IPC in which it has been submitted that a report

 was submitted against the petitioner for misappropriation of
 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44268 of 2021 dt.21-01-2025
                                            2/4




         42 CMR rice. The said report was submitted by the then

         District Food Supply Corporation, Rohtas. It has further been

         alleged that during course of investigation, it transpired that

         on query made by Superintendent of Police, Rohtas from the

         petitioner about the documents of 42 CMR rice but, even after

         issuance of notice to him under Section 91 of the Code of

         Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who was the District

         Manager at that time did not give the said documents, neither

         records were made available before the Superintendent of

         Police, Rohtas. Said notice dated 25.10.2016 was made

         available to the office on 28.10.2016. Even then, till

         10.12.2016

, the compliance was not made. On the other

hand, a reminder was issued by the Officer Incharge to the

District Manager, State Food Corporation and demand was

made for the documents with regard to the rice miller but,

even then, no documents as made available to them.

3. During the course of argument, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to memo

No.8188 dated 16.10.2017 issued from the Superintendent

of Police, Rohtas, wherein it was informed to District
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44268 of 2021 dt.21-01-2025
3/4

Prosecution Officer, Sasaram as to withdraw the prosecution

against petitioner for the reason that documents, which was

demanded from State Food Corporation was now made

available to police. It is submitted by learned counsel that

non-availability of required documents was neither intentional

nor deliberate for the reason that as it is apparent from the

aforesaid letter that total of 149 cases were lodged between

2012-2016, prima facie caused a heavy work load.

4. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid,

continuing with proceeding before learned trial court would

only amount to abuse of the process of court of law.

5. Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, learned APP opposed the

quashing petition. However, he could not disputed the factual

submissions as advanced by learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner.

6. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

impugned order taking cognizance dated 20.02.2017 passed

by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas qua petitioner in

connection with none F.I.R. Case No. 10 of 2017 is, hereby,

quashed/set aside in view of Memo No.8188 dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44268 of 2021 dt.21-01-2025
4/4

16.01.2017 as discussed above.

7. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial

court forthwith.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          24-01-2025
Transmission Date       24-01-2025
 

[ad_1]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here