Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14505 of 2008 ====================================================== Ram Babu Singh @ Ram Babu, Son of Sri Jai Mangal Singh, Resident of Village – Harnahia, Police Station – Sahaiara, District – Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Survesh Ram, Son of Vijay Ram, Resident of Village – Mahuria, Police Station – Shivhar, District – Shivhar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 7 02-04-2012 Heard Sri Udit Narayan Singh, learned counsel who was assisted by Smt. Poonam Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Sevak Chaudhary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Devendra Kumar, learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 / informant. 2. The sole petitioner while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 12.10.2007 passed by Sri Ram Awadhesh Prasad, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar, Sitamarhi in Sheohar P.S. Case No. 15 of 2006, G.R. No. 571 of 2006 / Tr. No. 1325 of 2007, whereby the learned Magistrate differing with the Police report has passed order of cognizance under [STATUTE] and Section 3(i)(x) of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14505 of 2008 (7) dt.02-04-2012 2 / 3 2 Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party no. 2 had initially filed a complaint which was registered as Complaint Case No. 06 of 2006. The said complaint was referred to the Police for registration and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During investigation allegation was not found true and as such final report was submitted by the Police. However, the learned Magistrate differing with the Police report has passed the impugned order of cognizance. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate while differing with the Police report was required to assign reason. However, without assigning any reason he has passed the impugned order which requires to be interfered with. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that in the case diary materials were there but even then due to change of Deputy Superintendent of Police final report was submitted in the case and as such the learned Magistrate after perusing the case diary has rightly passed the order. He submitted that in number of paragraphs of the case diary there are materials showing involvement of the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may while hearing a petition under Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14505 of 2008 (7) dt.02-04-2012 3 / 3 3 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it would not be appropriate for this court to examine entire case diary. Fact remains that the learned Magistrate has passed order of cognizance differing with the Police report without assigning any reason which is prima facie incorrect and illegal and as such the order impugned is required to be set aside. It is true that that the learned Magistrate was competent to take cognizance differing with the Police report but at the same time while differing it was required on his part to assign succinctly reason for differing with the Police report. No reason has been assigned in the impugned order and as such there is no option but to set aside the order i.e. order dated 12.10.2007 passed by Sri Ram Awadhesh Prasad, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar, Sitamarhi, in Sheohar P.S. Case No., 15 of 2006, G.R. No. 571 of 2006 / Tr. No. 1325 of 2007. Matter is remitted back to the court below for passing fresh order on the basis of materials on record succinctly assigning reason if the learned Magistrate prefers to pass order of cognizance differing with the Police report. In case of acceptance of the Police report there is no requirement to assign reason. 6. With above observation and direction the petition stands allowed. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.