SHAKTI VISHAL Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who happens to be one of the accused of Town P.S. Case No.502 of 2011, Trial No.175 of 2016. pending before Sub -Judge, IXth -cum -A.C.J.M., Muzaffarpur is found offended on account of refusal of his prayer so made under Section 239 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 22.01.2016, filed instant petition challenging the same.

(2.) Sanjay Kumar Lal, O.P. No.2/complainant filed complaint petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging inter alia that as he along with his father succeeded in getting sale deed in their favour relating to land bearing Khata No.122, Khesra No.614(ka)(kha), Area 7 dhur vide sale deed dated 26.12.2007 as well as 16.01.2008, the accused persons became aggrieved thereby whereupon entered into criminal conspiracy to cause injury upon their legal right, got a Mahadanama executed by Chameli Devi, wife of Keshavchandra Aadak relating to the aforesaid land in name of Vishwanath Prasad (Father) and on account thereof Town P.S. Case no.450 of 2009 was registered. Subsequently thereof, proceeding ahead under aforesaid criminal design, the accused persons conspired whereunder accused Harishankar Prasad got sale deed in favour of his daughter -in -law, Sudha Devi, wife of Suraj Kumar (Kaju) on 26.02.2010 from aforesaid Chameli Devi, wife of Keshavchandra Aadak. Then thereafter, status of the parties has been disclosed. Apart from this, the order passed under Cr.W.J.C No.1080 of 2009 had also been referred.

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the aforesaid complaint to the concerned P.S. for registration and investigation according to Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. whereupon Town P.S. Case No.502 of 2011 was registered and proceeded with investigation. After completing the investigation, police had submitted charge sheet. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and after supply of police paper in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the proceeding came up for framing of charge and at that very stage, a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of petitioner which has been rejected by the learned lower court by the order impugned, hence this petition.