Subhash Yadav vs State Of Bihar And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 2141 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       CRIMINAL REVISION No.961 of 2017
        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-471 Year-2016 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE
                                        District- Munger
     ======================================================

Subhash Yadav Son of Sri Raghu Nandan Yadav, Resident of Taufir, Karari Tola, Police Station-Muffasil in the District of Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Krishnadeo Paswan, Chowkidar of Muffasil Police Station, Son of Late Agghnu Paswan, Resident of Village-Jaimangal Paswan Tola, P.S.-Muffasil in the District of Munger.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-05-2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned A.P.P. for the State.

The present Cr. Revision Application has been filed

against the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by Judicial

Magistrate-1st Class, Munger in Complaint Case No. 471 (c) of

2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

complainant has supported his case made in the complaint by

his solemn affirmation as well as by inquiry witness but the

court has not taken cognizance which is bad in law particularly

when there was material as well as an application which is Patna High Court CR. REV. No.961 of 2017 dt.05-05-2023

annexed as Annexure-7 by which the complainant has prayed to

the court to add the name of opposite party No.2 as accused in

this case on the ground that in the inquiry the involvement of the

Chaukidar Krishnadeo Paswan figured as he has taken

Zimbanama dated 04.05.2016 and has given to the enemy of the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the State submits that order

passed by the trial court dated 16.05.2017 is well reasoned order

and there is no need of any interference.

Upon going through the records and argument of

the petitioner, there is one vital question that there were in total

6-7 named accused persons and 4-5 unknown accused persons

named in the complaint case. Court upon going through the

solemn affirmation and the inquiry witness adduced on behalf of

the complainant and his witnesses, has took cognizance against

three named accused persons.

Upon specific query of this Court that whether

name of opposite party No.2 was present in the complaint

petition or not, counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that his

name was not figured in the complaint petition but he submits

that his name has figured in the evidences and for that he has

filed a separate petition before the court to take cognizance Patna High Court CR. REV. No.961 of 2017 dt.05-05-2023

though his name was not there in the complaint petition.

In view of the Court once name has not given in the

complaint petition, then name of any unknown accused persons

shall be added only at the stage of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and

not prior to that, more over the application of adding name i.e. a

non-consideration of Annexure-7 of the present petition has not

been challenged at any earlier stage, therefore, this Court is not

granting any relief to the petitioner at present, and hence Court

is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 16.05.2017 passed

by Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Munger in Complaint Case No.

471 (c) of 2016 but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner

that in case the name of opposite party No.2 continued at the

advance stage of trial then he shall be at liberty to file an

application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

With this direction, the present Cr. Revision

Application stands disposed off.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Ravishankar/-

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date