Shobha DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14721 of 2016
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-417 Year-2014 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
                                                        Samastipur
                 ======================================================
           1.     Shobha Devi W/O Sri Ramavtar Rai R/O Vill.- Magardahi, P.S.- Town,
                  Dist.- Samastipur.
           2.    Ramavtar Rai S/O Late Bachchan Rai R/O Vill.- Magardahi, P.S.- Town,
                 Dist.- Samastipur.
           3.    Monalisha @ Babli D/O Ramavtar Rai R/O Vill.- Magardahi, P.S.- Town,
                 Dist.- Samastipur.
           4.    Abhishek Kumar S/o Ramavtar Rai R/O Vill.- Magardahi, P.S.- Town, Dist.-
                 Samastipur.
           5.    Anandi Ria S/O Kuldip Rai R/O Vill.- Baghi, P.S.- Samastipur (M), Dist.-
                 Samastipur.
           6.    Anil Kumar S/O Sakkal Rai R/O Vill.- Baghi, P.S.- Samastipur (M), Dist.-
                 Samastipur.
           7.    Umesh Rai @ Umesh Prasad Rai S/O Murli Rai R/O Vill.- Bishanpur, P.S.-
                 Warisnagar, Dist.- Samastipur.

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Yugeshwar Gope S/O Late Raghunath Gope R/O Mohalla- Azad Nagar
                 Mohanpur (Near BRB College Samastipur), P.S.- Mufassil, Dist.-
                 Samastipur.

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate
                                                 Ms. Rani Shashi Bharti, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
                 For the O.P. No.2       :       None.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   13-02-2026                    Heard learned counsels for the parties.

                                 2. The instant application has been filed under Section

                   482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’)

                   seeking quashing of the order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the

                   learned S.D.J.M., Samastipur, in connection with Samastipur
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14721 of 2016(4) dt.13-02-2026
                                            2/4




          (M) P.S. Case No. 417 of 2014, whereby and whereunder

          cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504/34

          of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) has been taken and

          the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the said

          offences.

                       3. Mr. Bijay Bhusan Prasad, learned counsel

          appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that Petitioner

          Nos. 1 to 4 are the daughter, son-in-law and maternal

          grandchildren of O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that there is a

          dispute relating to passage between the said petitioners and O.P.

          No. 2, who are close relatives, in respect of which a preventive

          proceeding under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated,

          wherein Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 were witnesses. Petitioner No. 7

          is a practising advocate and has been representing the

          petitioners since prior to the alleged occurrence. It is further

          submitted that in the chargesheet, the name of another advocate,

          namely Anil Kumar, has been mentioned, whereas in the F.I.R.,

          the informant has specifically named Umesh Rai, Advocate, as

          being involved in the commission of the alleged occurrence.

          The said aspect, however, was not appreciated by the learned

          Magistrate. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned

          order taking cognizance of the alleged offences is in a typed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14721 of 2016(4) dt.13-02-2026
                                            3/4




          format, in which only the word “cognizance” and the next date

          for appearance “30.10.2015” have been inserted in pen by the

          concerned Magistrate, while the remaining contents are typed.

          This, according to the learned counsel, reflects a mechanical and

          casual approach on the part of the Magistrate while taking

          cognizance, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. It is

          lastly submitted that the impugned order was stayed by this

          Court vide order dated 27.09.2016 and thereafter, the matter has

          remained at the same stage as it was on the date when the

          impugned order was passed.

                       4. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2 while

          learned APP for the State is present.

                       5. After having heard both the sides, this Court finds

          that the order impugned is completely mechanical and shows

          casual approach of the learned Magistrate while taking

          cognizance of the alleged offences as there is no reference of

          any paragraph of the case diary containing the relevant material

          showing the commission of the alleged offences, hence, the

          order impugned dated 30.07.2015 passed by learned S.D.J.M.,

          Samastipur in connection with Samastipur (M) P.S. Case No.

          417/2014 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, so, it stands set

          aside/quashed and the instant petition stands allowed.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14721 of 2016(4) dt.13-02-2026
                                                       4/4




                                  6. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh

                     order on merits, without being prejudiced by this order, after

                     taking into consideration the relevant materials available in the

                     case diary on the point of cognizance.




                                               (Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-

U     T