Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.6223 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Upendra Singh , son of Late Kishun Singh 2. Sachita Singh @ Sachidanand Singh, son of Late Kishun Singh, Both residents of village- Ghoshrawan, P.S. Giriyak, District- Nalanda 3. Subodh Kr. Singh 4. Muari Singh, Both sons of Sachida Singh alias Sachidanand Singh, residents of Village-Ghoshrawan, P.S. Giriyak, District-Nalanda .... .... Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER --------------------- 4 30-10-2012 Heard Dr. Alok Kumar Alok, learned counsel for the petitioners. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 28.12.2010 passed by F.T.C.No.IV, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No.387 of 2010, whereby the learned trial Judge has rejected the petition filed under Section 228 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that injuries were found simple in nature and, as such, it was not a case under [STATUTE] . According to learned counsel for the petitioners, other Sections are triable by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6223 of 2011 (4) dt.30-10-2012 2 / 2 2 Magistrate. Accordingly, at the time of charge, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners for remitting back the matter to the learned Magistrate since no offence under Section 307 was made out. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record as well as the impugned order. On perusal of the impugned order, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has committed no error in passing the impugned order. The learned court below has assigned detailed reason. Moreover, in this case, the injury was caused by Garasa on the head of the informant. I do not found any ground for interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the points, which have been raised in the present petition, at the defence stage. NKS/- (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.