UMESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P along with learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

(2.) There was commission of murder of Binod Singh and for that, on the fardbeyan of Gupteshwar Singh, his father Ayer P.S. Case no.11/2013 has been registered wherein, after investigation charge sheet has already been submitted. Subsequently thereof, after elapse of so many months Rajendra Singh Yadav/O.P. no.2/Complainant who happens to be son of Nathuni Singh, brother of Dhanjee Singh, Rajan Singh accused of Ayer P.S. Case No.11/2013 filed Complaint Petition No.1696(c)/2013 whereupon complainant was examined on S.A., witnesses have also been examined during course of an inquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 and then, vide order dtd. 30/8/1984 took cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC and for that, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial. Subsequently thereof, petitioners have preferred Cr. Revision no.209/2014 against the order of cognizance and the same has been dismissed vide order dtd. 2/8/2016 from the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara whereupon instant petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the successive orders.

(3.) In State of Hariyana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 the following criteries have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court attracting interference while exercising power under sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and for better appreciation the same is quoted below: