IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.994 of 2006
1. Parvindar Kumar Singh
2. Santosh Kumar Singh @ Santosh Kumar
(Both sons of Sri Duesh Singh, resident of village-Saine (Rajput
Tola), P.S.-Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur.
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Chandraket Singh, son of Late Dhandeep Singh, resident of
village- Saine (Rajput Tola), P.S.-Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur.
-----------
6. 26.07.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this
revision application against the order dated 5.09.2006
passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur
in S.T.No.390/99 by which the petition filed by the
petitioners under Section 228(I) of Cr.P.C. has been
rejected.
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nirmal Kumar Singh No.3,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mrs.
I.B.Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that from perusal of the FIR, it appears that no
offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is made out against the
petitioners. He has further contended that at best on the
basis of the material offence under Section 325 of I.P.C.
2
was made out against the petitioners. As such, the charge
can be framed against the petitioners under Section 325 of
the I.P.C. and the case record to be sent to the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur for trial.
Learned counsel for the State as well as
learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2
submits that during investigation, it has come to light that
the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C.
is made out against the accused . In support of their
contention, paragraph nos.6, 8, 9, 10,13 and 22 of the case
diary have been referred. It has further been submitted that
after considering all these materials, the learned trial court
has rejected the petition dated 21.01.2006 filed on behalf
of the petitioners.
After hearing the learned counsel for both the
parties and on perusal of the carbon copy of the case diary,
it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the
opposite parties is correct. At the time of considering the
petition under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., the
learned trial court is not required to meticulously judge nor
is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the
accused. If there is a strong suspicion against the
3
accused giving rise to presumption of his guilt then it is
not open to the court to show that there is no sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the accused. The Court has
only to find the prima facie case against the accused. At
the stage of framing of charges meticulous consideration
of evidence and materials on record by the court is not
necessary. In this connection, reference may be made to a
decision in the case of Rana Ramdev Singh and Ors. Vs.
The State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2000(4) PLJR 405.
Considering the facts and circumstances as
stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order. This application is dismissed.
V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)