GOVIND PRASAD KEJRIWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc.No.30284 of 2011 by which the High Court has dismissed the said quashing petition preferred by the original accused and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 464 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 379 IPC, original Accused has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) That the private respondent herein Gopal Prasad son of Shri Shyam S. Prasad, brother of one Ramesh Kumar ­ a partner of a firm called Kejriwal Films filed the criminal complaint being Complaint Case No.464 of 2001 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh against the appellant herein ­ one of the partner of Kejriwal Films, for the offences under Sections 379, 323, 504, 506, 406, 452, 147, 148/34 IPC. The complaint reads as under:

(3.) That the said complaint was filed on 19.12.2001. From the record it appears that prior thereto, a written report was lodged by the appellant herein Govind Prasad Kejriwal, against Ramesh Kumar and others for the offence under Section 379 IPC. After the investigation, the I.O. filed the chargesheet against all the four accused persons including the complainant herein and even Ramesh Kumar for the offence under Section 379 IPC. That the Learned Trial Court has taken cognizance against all the accused persons including Original private respondent herein ­ original complainant under Section 379 IPC. That the said trial is pending. That the complaint filed by the private respondent ­ original complainant herein Gopal Prasad being Complaint No.464 of 2001 came to be dismissed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate vide Order dated 14.02.2003. That the Original complainant filed the Revision Application before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barh. Vide Order dated 01.12.2004, the Learned Sessions Judge, Barh allowed the said revision application and set aside the order passed by the Learned Magistrate dated 14.02.2003 and remanded the case back to the Learned Magistrate for further inquiry and to pass fresh order in accordance with law. That pursuant to the remand order, the complainant deposed one witness in support of his case. Thereafter the Learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.07.2005 had taken cognizance against the appellant herein under Sections 323, 341 and 379 IPC, against the order passed by the Learned Magistrate taking cognizance under Sections 323, 341, 379 IPC, the appellant herein preferred quashing petition before the High Court being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.34168 of 2005. That vide order dated 16.05.2006, the High Court declined to interfere, however observed that the appellant is at liberty to move the Learned Lower Court. That thereafter brother of the original complainant ­ Ramesh Kumar filed a title suit against the appellant and the partnership firm for dissolution of the partnership and rendition of accounts. That the said suit came to be dismissed, against which the First Appeal was preferred by the said Ramesh Kumar which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.01.2011. That Thereafter the appellant filed an application for discharge. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 04.08.2011 rejected the prayer of the appellant for discharge. That thereafter the appellant filed an application before the High Court for quashing of order dated 04.08.2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate rejecting the discharge application. Vide impugned Judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the said application and has refused to discharge the appellant and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings. Hence, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.