Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.49548 of 2006 =========================================================== Dr.Ram Prakash Mahto, son of Late Swaroop Chand Mahto, resident of Mohalla- Naya Tola, Katihar, P.S. & District-Katihar. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.B.K.Mangalam, Adv. For the State: Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH C.A.V. JUDGMENT 1. The sole petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „code‟) and has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.11.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Katihar, in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2006, by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code to discharge him from the case has been rejected. 2. Heard Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. The aforesaid sessions trial arises out of Katihar Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49548 of 2006 dt.03-07-2012 2 / 11 2 (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 208 of 2005 dated 19.5.2005 which was initially registered under [STATUTE] . Subsequently, in course of investigation on the requisition made by the police, [STATUTE] was also added in the F.I.R. 4. The FIR was instituted on the basis of written report submitted by one Umesh Chandra Bishwas, the Block Development Officer-cum- Circle Officer, Katihar to the Officer-in-Charge, Mufassil Police Station, Katihar on 19.5.2005. In the said written report, it has been alleged that on the basis of written instruction of the District Magistrate, Katihar, a team headed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Katihar was constituted to remove encroachment from public land. A police team consisting the Officer-in-Charge, Sahaik Police Station and the Officer-in-Charge, Mufassil Police Station was deputed for maintaining law and order. The police party reached at the place in question at 11.30 a.m. on 19.5.2005. It has been further alleged that a notice was published in the local Hindi daily “Hindustan” on 7.5.2005 regarding removal of encroachment pursuant to an order passed by the High Court. Public announcements were also made for three consecutive days in the town for removal of the encroachment from the land in question. As per written report, public notices were also served upon the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49548 of 2006 dt.03-07-2012 3 / 11 3 encroachers by the office of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Katihar. Some tractors of the Municipal Corporation were requisitioned and 25-30 labourers were engaged in order to facilitate the anti encroachment drive of the administration. 5. It has further been alleged in the written report that the anti-encroachment drive was being carried out peacefully. However, at about 12.30 p.m., the petitioner, who was a local M.L.A. together with Up-mukhiya Ghanshaym Poddar, and some others came at the place of occurrence and instigated the encroachers not to vacate the land and, if necessary, sacrifice their life. In the meantime, the Up-mukhiya, Ghanshayam Poddar went away but the petitioner continued to be present. He kept on instigating the encroachers not to vacate the land. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate tried to persuade the petitioner not to create problem but the petitioner continued instigating the mob of encroachers, as a result of which, the situation became volatile. Apprehending danger, in order to maintain public tranquility, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Katihar issued order under Section 144 of the Code. Repeated announcements were made that the mob was unlawful and, thus, they should disperse but the mob of encroachers did not pay any heed to the orders issued under Section 144 of the Code. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Katihar (Mufassil) and the Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Katihar town also intervened and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49548 of 2006 dt.03-07-2012 4 / 11 4 tried to persuade the mob to maintain law and order but, in the meantime, on instigation of the petitioner and some others, the mob turned violent and started pelting bricks and stones, as a result of which, several persons including the informant and an A.S.I. of Police sustained injury. Some persons from among the mob, being variously armed with deadly weapons, attacked upon the police force. One of the accused Bipin Ram repeatedly assaulted constable Sahdeo Pandit with sword causing serious injuries to him as a result of which he became unconscious and was immediately taken to K.M.C.H. for treatment. In order to control the violent mob, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Katihar directed the police to arrest the persons indulged in rioting and breaking law. The police also used mild force in self-defence which caused ruckus among the persons leading the mob. The police arrested in all eight persons, including the petitioner, from the place at the time of occurrence. 6. Lastly, in the written report, it has been alleged that on the instigation of petitioner and others, an unlawful mob of 250- 300 persons being variously armed attacked and assaulted the functionaries of the State and police personnels in order to deter them from discharge of their duty, as a result of which several public servants sustained injury. 7. As noted above, initially, the case was registered, inter alia, under [STATUTE] , but since the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49548 of 2006 dt.03-07-2012 5 / 11 5 injured Constable Sahdeo Pandit subsequently died in course of treatment, Sec

Applicable IPC Section: 333

Statute Text:
Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty. Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.