Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21156 of 2011 ================================================== 1. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Son of Sri Manoj Singh 2. Manoj Singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh, Son of Late Prabhunath Singh Both resident of Village- Soniya, P.S.- Daudpur, District- Saran .... .... Petitioners. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2. 22-11-2012 Heard Sri Udit Narayan Singh, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Radha Krishna Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Braj Kishore Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 10-05-2011 passed by the Fast Track Court No. 4, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2010, arising out of Daudpur P. S. Case No. 49 of 2008. By the said order, learned court below has rejected the petition filed under Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21156 of 2011 (2) dt.22-11-2012 2 / 3 2 Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby, a prayer was made to remand back the matter to the court of learned Magistrate for trial on the ground that no offence under [STATUTE] is made out and case is not triable by the court of Sessions. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was allegation of inflicting only one injury by knife, that too not on vital part of the informant and as such, no case under [STATUTE] is made out. Accordingly, he submits that it is a fit case to be tried by a Magistrate not by the learned Sessions Judge. Sri Braj Kishore Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that in the F.I.R., there is specific allegation that in the occurrence, the petitioner no. 1 had ordered the petitioner no. 2 to kill the informant and thereafter, the petitioner no. 2, with a view to kill him (informant), gave knife blow in the abdomen. In the meanwhile, he turned and thereafter, knife injury was inflicted in between the belly and thigh of the informant. He further submits that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21156 of 2011 (2) dt.22-11-2012 3 / 3 3 from the order of learned Sessions Judge, it is evident that no error has been committed by the court below. Moreover, he submits that this matter is required to be examined during the trial and merely on the ground that there was no repetition, case may not be remanded back to the court of Magistrate. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. After going through the F.I.R. as well as impugned order, the Court is satisfied that learned Fast Track Court-4 has committed no error in rejecting the petition. The petition stands dismissed. However, it goes without saying that learned court below, while trying the case, may not be prejudiced by this order and examine the materials on the basis of evidence on record. Anay (Rakesh Kumar, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.