Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11364 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Subhag Pal , son of late Keshwar Pal 2. Sudarshan Pal, son of late Keshwar Pal 3. Praven Pal alias Piku Pal, son of Subhag Pal 4. Anil Pal, son of Sri Sudarshan Pal, 5. Satendra Pal 6. Hari Pal, sons of late Bhagwat Pal 7. Suraj Pal, son of Daroga Pal 8. Surendra Pal, son of Sri Suraj Pal, all resident of Village- Bairi Tola, P.S. Sanjhauli, P.O. Karmanini, District- Rohats. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anant Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 06-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.7.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.442 of 2010 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bikramganj (Rohtas) by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under [STATUTE] . The order was challenged by the petitioners vide Criminal Revision No. 195 of 2010 and the revisional court has affirmed the view of the Magistrate, accordingly dismissed the revision application. However, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11364 of 2011 (2) dt.06-07-2012 2 / 3 2 the revisional court has held that no offence under [STATUTE] is made out but with regard to other sections he has found that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. It appears from the record that one incident has given rise to two cases. One in the nature of complainant case i.e. Compliant Case No.442 of 2010 which is the subject matter of the present case and another case is Sanjhauli P.S. Case No. 37 of 2010 for the offences under [STATUTE] . It also appears that for small matter both parties scuffled and assaulted to each other. From the side of the petitioner it has been alleged that they have received grievous injuries whereas from the complaint petition of the present case it has been alleged that they have assaulted and looted the material from their houses. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the materials on record and has taken cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present case is counter blast of the case filed by the petitioners in which they received serious injuries and the present case has been filed in order to save their skin. It has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11364 of 2011 (2) dt.06-07-2012 3 / 3 3 been further submitted that case from the side of the petitioners was filed on 30.5.2010 whereas the present case has been filed on 2.6.2010. In support his contention learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment in the case of M/S Eicher Tractor Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Harihar Singh and Anr., reported in 2008(8) Supreme 559 and has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of counter blast has quashed the proceeding. The fact of this case is quite different to the facts of aforesaid case of Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is easy to raise the malafide but it is difficult to prove the same. There is no dispute on the principle raised in a case of malafide or counter blast but this case does not come under that category. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly this application is dismissed. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, 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.