Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39441 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Surendra Singh, Son of Late Maheshi Singh, 2. Rabitosh Singh. 3. Ashutosh Singh, both are sons of Surendra Singh. All are resident of Village Panchurukhi, P.S. Bheldi Distt. Saran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 07-05-2012 Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Three petitioners, who are facing trial in Trial No. 1714 of 2009, arising out of Parsa P.S. Case No. 48 of 2005, have approached this court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash an order dated 04.09.2010 whereby Cr. Revision No. 385 of 2009, which was preferred by the petitioners against the order of amendment of charge dated 27.10.2009 passed by the learned Magistrate was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though F.I.R. was lodged for the offences under [STATUTE] , the Police during investigation did not collect any material showing commission of offence under [STATUTE] , and as such, Police submitted charge sheet under Sections Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39441 of 2010 (3) dt.07-05-2012 2 / 2 2 341, 323 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Magistrate had also taken cognizance for the same offences, but during the trial, after three witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution under [STATUTE] , which was allowed by the learned Magistrate, and subsequently, the order of Magistrate was approved by the Revisional Court. Sri Mukesh Kumar Singh, has assailed the order on the ground that during the investigation none of the witnesses save and except informant had disclosed commission of offence by the accused persons under [STATUTE] . He further submits that with oblique motive the informant of the case has taken steps for getting the charge amended. On aforesaid ground it has been prayed for setting aside both the orders. After going through the material available on record, I do not find any defect in either of the orders. The learned Magistrate has amended the charge on the basis of evidence brought during the trial. The petition stands dismissed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.