PATNA, India, March 8 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Feb. 5:

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar, in Complaint Case No. C.A. 84 of 2015, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 379, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and summoned the petitioners to face trial for the said offences. The aforesaid order taking cognizance is under challenge in the present quashing application.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners:-

3. Mr. Jibendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in the eye of law, being contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in Surendra Pandit @ Soren Pandit & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42389 of 2012. The relevant paragraph, upon which reliance has been placed, is reproduced hereinbelow:

"As properly advised, the 2nd respondent filed a protest petition. The concerned Court could have weighed the pros and cons of the final report, on the one hand, and the protest petition, on the other hand, and taken a decision in this behalf. Even from perusal of the order challenged in this petition, it is evident that the trial Court accepted the final report, despite there being a protest petition. It only means that protest petition was not found to be acceptable.

Once the final report was accepted, the proceeding referable to the FIR stand terminated. If the second respondent was aggrieved on account of the acceptance of the final report filed by the police, he ought to have approached this Court by instituting appropriate proceedings. However, on his insistence, the protest petition was treated as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Whatever be the possibility for the protest petition being treated as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., once the final report has been accepted, the question of keeping the matter alive through a different channel does not arise."

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMyMjg1NSMyMDE2IzEjTg==-Jfd--ak1--M6RgglE=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.