Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9531 of 2011 (2) dt.22-06-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9531 of 2011 ====================================================== Surendra Pandey son of Baleshwar Pandey, resident of village-Nerrut, P.O. & P.S.-Deepnagar, District-Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Manoj Pandey son of late Suresh Pandey, resident of village-Damo Fathepur, P.S.-Khijarsarai, District-Gaya. 3. Ranjit Pandey resident of village-Damo Fathepur, P.S.-Khijarsarai, District-Gaya. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Nath, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 22-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated Civil Line Police Station Case No. 156 of 2010 for offences under [STATUTE] . From the F.I.R. it appears that one Manoj Pandey had received an information on 21.5.2010 at 2.30 P.M. that the dead body of his father is lying near the Phalgu river and when he went along with his family members there he found the dead body of his father. He has stated that his father had gone to Gaya. He has further stated that his younger brother, Ranjit Pandey had married with the daughter of the Surendra Pandey and the relationship between the wife and husband has turned sour. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9531 of 2011 (2) dt.22-06-2012 On 20.5.2010 Shambhu Pandey son of Ramanand Pandey, Surendra Pandey son of Baleshwar Pandey, Ramanand Pandey son of Bachchu Pandey, Rakesh and Ramanand Pandey came to the house of the complainant and threatened for dire consequences. The informant has raised suspicion that they are the persons responsible for killing his father. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing in the F.I.R. which can show the connection of the petitioner with the murder of the victim. He has further stated that there is nothing in the F.I.R. about any chance witness and other witness and no Sanha has been mentioned to be lodged . He has further submitted that Shambhu Pandey and Rakesh Pandey is the same person but the informant does not know the fact that Shambhu Pandey and Rakesh Pandey is the same person and has further stated that the case should be treated as U.D. case. He has further submitted that there is no matrimonial case has been pending and it is a fit case for quashing of the trial. The argument that has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner has no substance because it is the matter of investigation and the trial and the materials that will come during the investigation and the evidences come during trial will decide fate of the petitioner. The F.I.R. cannot be quashed on the ground Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9531 of 2011 (2) dt.22-06-2012 that no chance witness or any witness has been mentioned. These are the matters of investigation and trial. It is a matter of 2010. This Court does not know what is the present status of the investigation. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this case. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. If the charge-sheet has been submitted, the court below will try to expedite the trial of the case. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.