IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.15591 of 2008
1. ASHOK RAI son of Sri Sunder Rai
2. Sadanand Thakur son of late Rambhaj Thakur
3. Anant Singh @ Anant Kr. Singh son of Laxman
Singh
4.Mulki Rai son of Baldeo Rai
All residents of village-Nemua, P.S.-Barahat
Dist.-Banka ...... .....Petitioners
Versus
1.STATE OF BIHAR
2.Vijay Yadav son of late Kawali Yadav,
resident of village-Nemua, P.S.-Barahat,
Dist.-Banka. ..... .....Opp.Party.
-----------
2. 25.6.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction
of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
have prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.2.2008 passed by
Sri N.N.Choudhar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III,
Banka, in S.T. No.1114 of 2006/Tr. No.141 of 2008. By the said
order the learned Judge has rejected the petition filed on behalf of
the petitioners under section 228 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for remitting back the case to the court of Magistrate for
trial since, according to the defence, no offence under section 307
of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, while pressing this
petition, submits that the injury report does not show that during
the occurrence an attempt was made to kill any member of the
informant side and, accordingly, it has been argued that the
learned Judge without examining the materials on record has
rejected the petition filed for remitting back the record to the court
2
of Magistrate for trial.
Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the
prayer of the petitioners.
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have
examined the materials available on record including the
impugned order. In this case first information report vide Banka
(Barahat) P.S.Case No.275 of 2004 was registered for the offences
under sections 341, 323 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Besides four petitioners, other accused persons were also named as
accused in the first information report. From the first information
report itself it appears that in the occurrence on the head of wife of
the informant a Khanti blow was given and, thereafter, other
accused persons also assaulted the family members of the
informant with Lathi. The impugned order shows that the learned
Judge, while hearing the petition filed under section 228 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, had examined the case record and
observed that injury report shows that there were infliction and
repetition of blows and, accordingly, the learned Judge was of the
opinion that it was a case under section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners had argued that though
first information report was registered for the offence under
section 307 of the Indian Penal Code also during investigation
police had not collected any material disclosing commission of
offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and charge
sheet was not submitted under section 307 of the Indian Penal
3
Code. However, the learned Magistrate, differing with the charge
sheet submitted by the police, took cognizance of the offence
under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
In this case first information report was lodged in the
year 2004 and after submission of the charge sheet the learned
Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence under section 307
of the Indian Penal Code besides other sections of the Indian Penal
Code and, thereafter, committal proceeding had taken place. It
appears that at the stage of committal proceeding, no objection
was raised for non-application of section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code. In view of materials available on record, I am satisfied that,
while rejecting the petition filed under section 228 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the learned Judge has committed no error. It
appears that the said petition was filed only with a view to delay
the commencement of the trial.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition
and the petition stands rejected. Keeping in view the fact that the
first information report was lodged long back in the year 2004, it
is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case
expeditiously and conclude the same as early as possible.
Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)