IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PURNENDU SINGH
Jagat Shankar Prakash @ Jagat Shankar Prasad @ Jagat Shankar S/o Late Madan Mohan Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PURNENDU SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan , learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 29.11.2017 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 795(C) of 2016 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna whereby cognizance of offence has been taken under Sections 323, 341, 504, 354A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that Complaint Case No.795(C) of 2016 was filed making petitioner as accused under Sections 323, 341, 504, 354A of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance of the offence was taken on 29.11.2017. The petitioner was produced before the Court after having summon served on 24.10.2017 and in most mechanical manner without following the procedure prescribed under section 244 of the Cr.P.C. The Magistrate proceeded to continue with the trial for the offence under the above Sections. Learned counsel submitted that the Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. prescribes for fixing date and giving opportunity to the
Application which contain some assertion should be verified by person making statements for holding such person responsible regarding its genuineness – However, there is no provision which makes such....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of the complainant should not lead to the discharge of the accused without considering the evidence already adduced by the complai....
The preliminary evidence is the foundation for framing charges, but not for a verdict of acquittal or conviction. The accused's failure to avail the statutory privilege does not benefit the complaina....
The court held that an FIR does not become void due to the victim's retraction of support, and the authority to amend charges is retained by the trial court during the charge framing stage.
A detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of summoning of an accused person.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.