MADHUSUDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) THIS application had been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance but while the application was pending, an order was passed on 7.6.2013 whereby warrant of arrest non-bailable was ordered to be issued without service of summons and therefore, that order has been challenged by way of this interlocutory application and hence, prayer made in the interlocutory application be allowed to be incorporated in the main application.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that one case had been lodged by the petitioner no.3 for commission of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the complainant/informant and subsequent to that, the informant/complainant lodged a case with respect to commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 390, 451, 452 and 506 of the Indian Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act which case upon investigation was found to be false. Subsequently, protest petition was filed which was treated to be a complaint and the court has taken cognizance of the offences. That order has been challenged to be bad in this application on account of the allegation made in the FIR being mala fide andalso appears to be improbable.