Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22274 of 2011 (5) dt.18-04-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.22274 of 2011 ====================================================== Upendra Singh & Ors. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 5 18-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as a well as learned counsel for the accused persons. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 17th March 2011 passed in Cr. Revn.No. 254 of 2010 whereby the court of Sessions, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 17th March 2011 has directed that Gaighat P.S.Case No. 55 of 2002 [STATUTE] se No. 127 of 2002 be heard by one court in order to avoid the conflict in the judgment. It appears that both the sides have lodged FIR making different version of sane incident. From the side of petitioners, Gaighat P.S.Case No.55 of 2002 was lodged where it has been alleged that Indramani Singh has died as Mudrika Singh exhorted Lakhendra Singh to kill Surendra Singh but Indramani Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22274 of 2011 (5) dt.18-04-2012 Singh came forward to save the informant and succumbed to bullet injury and from the other side Gaighat P.S.Case No. 127 of 2002 was lodged in which it has been alleged that Indramani Singh has not died from the bullet of Lakhendra Singh but he died due to firing resorted by Upendra Singh aiming at Satyendra Singh who is a man of short height and he had taken an escape which resulted in killing of Indramani Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Gaighat P.S.Case No.127 of 2002 is not triable by the Sessions court and, as such, there is no occasion for the Sessions court to direct Gaighat P.S.Case No. 127 of 2002 to be tried by the same court. He further submitted though there is a provision under Section 323 Cr.P.C. for trial by the same court, but the purpose is quite different and it cannot be said that even in a case which cannot be tried by the court of Sessions be also tried by the said court. Learned counsel for the O.P. has disputed the argument and has said that when for the same incident there is case and counter case having different version of same incident, it is always desirable that both the cases should be heard by one court in order to avoid conflicting judgment. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments reported in, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22274 of 2011 (5) dt.18-04-2012 2001(2) SCC 688 (Sudhir and others v. State of M.P.) 2003(2) PLJR 479 (Smt. Radha Payari Devi and another v. The Bihar State Financial Corporation and another). 2008(1) PLJR 273(Jamahir Mahto v. The State of Bihar and another) and 1975 Cr.L.J. 1946 (Gauri Shankar Prasad and others v. The State of Bihar and another). on the proposition that when there are cases and counter cases for the same incident, it will always be safe that both the matters should be tried by the same court. Having considered the argument of both sides as this case is completely covered by the aforesaid judgments and the petitioner is not in a position to produce any contra judgment on the proposition as aforesaid and this Court does not find any substance in the argument of the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, the conducting court is directed to ensure that Gaighat P.S.Case No. 127 of 2002 be also expedited preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. However, it is also made further clear that both the cases will not be made analogous rather same will be Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22274 of 2011 (5) dt.18-04-2012 decided one after another. This order may be communicated through FAX at the cost of petitioner. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 341

Statute Text:
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully restraining any person. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.