Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BAIKUNTH SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Decided
15 December 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 561 · 2008 INSC 1433
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 562, margin F

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashing the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jehanabad taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and issuing summons against the applicants-respondents Nos.t\ 2 and 3. The High Court exercised power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cod~). The High Court was of the view that the case might have been filed by the complainant in order to pressurize the petitioners before the High Court not to proceed with the case which was lodged under Section 304-B ,201/34 IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Act against the complainant and others.

pp. 562–563, margin F

3

Various points were urged in support of the appeal. Primarily it was submitted that the petition was disposed of without issuing notice to the complainant. It is submitted that the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code was not warranted on the facts of the case.

p. 563, margin A

4

Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 supported the order of the High Court. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the stand of the appellant.

p. 563, margin B

5

It is not in dispute that the present appellant was impleaded as a party in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9428 of 2006 which was filed by respondents 2 and 3. Strangely, without issuing any notice the petition was disposed of.

p. 563, margin C

6

The High Court has come to a conclusion which appears to have been more on presumptions and surmises that the case might have been filed to pressurize the applicants before the High Court. There was no material in this regard and in any event the stage for deciding that question had not arisen.

p. 563, margin D

7

It cannot be said to be a case where the complainant was not required to be heard. It is more so because the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by the appellant which was registered as Complaint Case No.272 of 2002.

p. 563, margin E

8

In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order. We direct the parties to appear before the High Court without any further notice on 21st January, 2009. The Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to allot the matter to an appropriate Bench.

p. 563, margin F

9

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. B.B.B. Appeal disposed of.

p. 563, margin G