Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7096 of 2011 (2) dt.27-04-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7096 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Mithilesh Yadav 2. Hari Lal Yadav alias Hari Yadav 3. Brahmdeo Yadav, sons of late Hirdeo Yadav 4. Ganeshi Yadav 5. Basudeo Yadav 6. Triveni Yadav, sons of late Misri Yadav 7. Madan Yadav, son of Parikshan Yadav 8. Parikshan Yadav, son of late Baujan Yadav 9. Kailash Yadav, son of late Nakchhedi Yadav 10. Arvind Yadav 11. Bijay Yadav, sons of Triveni Yadav 12. Sita Ram Yadav 13. Khurkhur Yadav, sons of Ganeshi Yadav, all residents of Village- Gora, Police Station- Kusheshwar Asthan, District-Darbhanga 14. Uttim Yadav alias Uttim Lal Yadav, son of late Garmu Yadav 15. Nageena Yadav, son of late Adhik Lal Yadav 16. Yogendra Yadav, son of late Nakchhedi Yadav, residents of Village Bijulia, Police Station- Biraul, District- Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shravan Kumar, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Prakash Shekhar Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate (for O.P.No.2) Mr. B.P. Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 27-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 order dated 12.1.2011 passed in S.T. No.342 of 2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Camp Court, Benipur, arising out of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7096 of 2011 (2) dt.27-04-2012 Khusheshwar Asthan P.S. Case No.121 of 2008 by which the accused persons were called upon to face the trial under [STATUTE] . 3. In this case there is a case and counter case from both sides. According to the First Information Report the informant was assaulted on two occasions which led to filing of the present case for the offences under [STATUTE] . 4. Earlier the sessions court vide order dated 27.1.2010 has dropped the charge under [STATUTE] stating the fact that on taking into consideration the injuries received by the informant side no case under [STATUTE] is made out and the matter was remitted to the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biroul at Benipur for trial in accordance with law after framing of the charge in the light of the observation made above. 5. The said order was challenged by the informant side in Cr. Misc. No. 9029 of 2010 and this Court vide order dated 16.4.2010 set aside the order of the sessions court and asked the sessions court to reconsider all the materials on record for recording his conclusive findings as with regard to the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7096 of 2011 (2) dt.27-04-2012 availability of the materials under [STATUTE] . While passing the order this Court has held as follows: “In the opinion of this Court, the nature of injury whether simple or grievous by itself alone would not be a deciding factor for constituting the offence under [STATUTE] . If that was not so, every case of [STATUTE] . could be held to either offence under [STATUTE] depending on the nature of injury alone. Thus, when the court below has not taken into account, the statement of the witnesses supporting the allegation and has proceeded only on the premise of nature of injury, this Court would find it difficult to sustain the impugned order dropping the charge under Section 307 and remitting the matter for trial to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate.” 6. After remand of the matter the sessions court has considered the materials on record specially mentioning in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that the court has come to a finding that offence under [STATUTE] is made out which is under challenge before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the court below after remand of the matter has not applied its independent mind rather he has re-written the earlier order without any material. The sessions court while exercising the power was required to apply its independent mind while coming to a finding as to whether materials for constituting Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7096 of 2011 (2) dt.27-04-2012 the offence under [STATUTE] are available on record. This Court while remanding the matter has not given any direction for framing the charge for offence under section 307 of the Indian penal Code and only direction was to reconsider the materials on record. In that view of the matter the sessions court was duty bound to examine the same. He further submits that according to the First Information Report there was none to stop the petitioners to continue prosecution against the persons concerned and if the whole gamut facts be taken into consideration there was no intention to kill them. The court below ought to have applied its mind to consider the direction while coming to a finding but the court below has miserably failed to consider the case in the right perspective while recording the finding. He further submits that while passing the order in Cr. Misc. No.9029 of 2010 this Court did not notice the petitioner and submitted the order aforesaid is nullity and may be ignored. 8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the court below has rightly exercised the power and he considered the injuries that have been sustained by the party and after examination of the material on record the court below has rightly come to a conclusion that offence under 307 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7096 of 2011 (2) dt.

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.