Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26324 of 2008 ====================================================== Dilip Rai Son of Nandu Rai, resident of Mohalla Gandhi Chowk, Police Station Town (Hajipur), District Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sushilas Devi wife of Dilip Rai, daughter of Ram Ishwar Rai, resident of Mohalla Gandhi Chowk, Police Station Town (Hajipur), District Vaishali, at present residing at Nawanagar, Police Station Biddupur, District Vaishali. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 23-02-2012 Heard Dr. Alok Kumar Alok, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order, which was passed long back on 29.3.2007 in Sessions Trial No.59 of 2006, arising out of Town (Hajipur) P.S. Case No.572 of 2007, registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 307 and 323/34 of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26324 of 2008 (5) dt.23-02-2012 2 / 3 2 Indian Penal Code. By the said order, the court below has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 228(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for remitting back the matter to the court of Magistrate on the ground that offence alleged under [STATUTE] . was not made out. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no injury report on record and even then the court had proceeded under [STATUTE] . Be that as it may, the order impugned was passed long back on 29.3.2007. It has fairly been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner before the court that after rejection of the petition, charges were framed and evidence has already commenced. In view of the fact that evidence is going on, it would not be desirable to interfere with the impugned order. However, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26324 of 2008 (5) dt.23-02-2012 3 / 3 3 it is made clear that the petitioner can be at liberty to raise the point of non application of [STATUTE] in absence of any evidence at the time of argument. With above observation and direction, the petition stands dismissed. N.H./- (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.