Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17321 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Badri Narain Choudhary S/O Ram Awatar Choudhary Resident Of Village- Nemachak Haidar, Police Station- Chakmaheshi, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Abinash Choudhary @ Bipul S/O Shri Harishcharndra Choudhary Resident Of Village- Nema Chak Haidar, Police Station- Chak Maheshi, District- Samastipur. 3. Narendra Choudahary S/O Shri Maksudan Choudhary Resident Of Village- Nema Chak Haidar, Police Station- Chak Maheshi, District- Samastipur. 4. Abhishekh Choudhary S/O Shri Narendra Choudhary Resident Of Village- Nema Chak Haidar, Police Station- Chak Maheshi, District- Samastipur. 5. Govind Choudhary S/O Shri Bisheshwar Choudhary Resident Of Village- Nema Chak Haidar, Police Station- Chak Maheshi, District- Samastipur. 6. Sita Ram Choudhary S/O Shri Raj Narain Choudhary Resident Of Village- Nema Chak Haidar, Police Station- Chak Maheshi, District- Samastipur. 7. Shravindra Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri Bhuwaneshwar Choudhary Resident Of Village- Nema Chak Haidar, Police Station- Chak Maheshi, District- Samastipur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. V.K. Jaiswal,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Renu Kumari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL ORDER 3. 14.8.2012 The Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated dated 10.2.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Samastipur in G.R. No.1372 of 2001 Trial No.293 of 2012, by which he has rejected an application [STATUTE] that initially a complaint Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17321 of 2012 (3) dt.14-08-2012 2 was instituted, which was sent for investigation [STATUTE] (3) Cr.P.C. The police submitted charge sheet [STATUTE] ix witnesses, after which a petition [STATUTE] ions since in his submission the offence committed was punishable [STATUTE] rate refused such prayer. The petitioner then moved this High Court vide Cr.Misc.No.12487 of 2003 which permitted withdrawal of the petition observing that if at subsequent stage the Court is of the opinion that there was material transpiring which would warrant commitment of the case he may act in accordance with law. Thereafter three more witnesses were examined. A fresh application [STATUTE] e Petitioner then moved the Sessions Judge in revision who remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication, upon which the impugned order has been passed. I find from the impugned order that eight witnesses had been examined when this High Court had rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for commitment of the case and thereafter three witnesses have been examined Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17321 of 2012 (3) dt.14-08-2012 3 but none of them have added substantially to what the earlier eight witnesses have stated. The rest of the witnesses also subsequently examined have not substantially altered the allegations and, therefore, in my view when once the High Court had already rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for interfering in the matter, this Court should abstain from entertaining this application. In the result, the application is dismissed. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, 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.