Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14871 of 2011 ====================================================== Raghubansh Mani, S/O Late Karu Mahto, Resident Of Village- Jaitipur, P.S- Hilsa, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mahendra Prasad, son of late Etwari Prasad, resident of Village- Jaitipur, P.S. Hilsa, District-Nalanda .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Mr.Jitendra Nath Tiwary, Advocates. For the State : Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P. For the Opposite PartyNo.2 : Mr. Deo Nath Prasad, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY CAV ORDER 5 26.11.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the criminal prosecution of Hilsa P.S. case No. 287 of 2005 against the petitioner including the order dated 7.4.2011 passed in S.T. No.223 of 2010 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa (Nalanda) by which the court below has dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. 3. From the record it appears that one Mahendra Prasad, opposite party no.2, filed a written complaint before the Officer Incharge, Hilsa, Nalanda stating therein that on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14871 of 2011 (5) 2 2.11.2005 at about 3 P.M. he was irrigating his field by Fitter where his daughter-in-law Most., Shushila Devi, wife of late Awadhesh Prasad was sitting. In the meantime, his villagers, namely, Rajendra Prasad, son of late Sukhnandan Prasad, Sanjay Kumar, son of Rajendra Prasad and Raghubansh Mani, son of late Karu Mahto armed with iron rod and lathi reached there and exhorted to thrash his daughter-in-law as she was not ready for compromise. Rajendra Prasad, who was holding iron rod, with an intention to kill her gave a blow on her head caused fracture whereupon blood started oozing out. It has also been alleged that the accused persons assaulted her at her back as well as at her shoulder. When the informant raised alarm, the accused persons threatened for expulsion of the informant from native village in a case to approach the police station. It has been further alleged that accused persons have taken away golden chain of his daughter-in-law. On the basis of the written complaint a case was registered as Hilsa P.S. Case No.287 of 2005 for offences under [STATUTE] . 4. The police started investigation and the victim lady was examined by a Doctor on 2.11.2005 and he found Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14871 of 2011 (5) 3 simple injuries on her body. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet on 13.7.2006 under [STATUTE] against the accused persons except the petitioner. 5. The court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa differed with the police report and vide order dated 6.12.2008 took cognizance against the petitioner under [STATUTE] . The court below found that case was triable by the sessions court and committed the same for sessions trial. 6. An application on behalf of the petitioner under 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed to discharge the petitioner from the case as no incriminatiing material was available on record. The court below after considering the evidences collected by the police during investigation by the impugned order rejected the discharge petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioner under [STATUTE] , in view of the medical report, which shows minor injuries were found on the body of the victim. He further submits that the police after investigation Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14871 of 2011 (5) 4 found the petitioner to be innocent and submitted the final form in his favour, the court below while taking cognizance has not applied its judicial mind and as such the present proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court. He further submits that the discharge petition was filed by the petitioner but the court below wrongly refused to discharge the petitioner. In support of his submissions he has relied on the following judgments in the case of: (i) G. Sagar Suri and another Vs. state of U.P. and others, reported in A.I.R.2000 SC 754, Paragraph 7 (ii) Vakil Kumar Ram Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2012(3) P.L.J.R. 663 (iii) Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, reported in A.I.R. 2008 SC 251, paragraph nos. 25, 28, 31, 45 and 49 and (iv) Anil D. Ambani Vs. The State of Bihar & another, reported in 2011 (2) P.L.J.R. 155. 8. Learned counsel for the State/opposite party no.2 has contradicted the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that while considering validity of discharge order the petitioner can not be allowed to challenge the order of cognizance that too in a situation when he has not made any prayer in the petition. So much so, the court below while considering the discharge petition Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14871 of 2011 (5) 5 has considered different paragraphs of the case diary and found sufficient materials to proceed with the trial against the petitioner. He has further submitted that at the stage of framing of charge or considering the discharge petition the court below has rightly refused to examine the evidence meticulously. 9. Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner did never challenge the order of cognizance and at this stage when the petitioner is challenging the order of discharge the petitioner can not be allowed to challenge col

Applicable IPC Section: 325

Statute Text:
Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.