Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.912 of 2010 ====================================================== Ajit Kumar Shaw S/o Late Biranchi Lal Shaw R/o Village/Mohalla-Sri Kasturwa Water Works Ghosi Tola, P.S-Kotwali, Dist-Munger .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Godhan Singh Late Ayodhaya Prasad Singh R/o Mohalla-Bhagat Singh Chock, P.S- Kotwali, Dist-Munger 3. Nilamber Singh S/o Godhan Singh R/o Mohalla-Bhagat Singh Chock, P.S- Kotwali, Dist-Munger 4. Pankaj Singh S/o Mahadeo Singh R/o Mohalla-Bhagat Singh Chock, P.S- Kotwali, Dist-Munger 5. Murari @ Murari Agarwal S/o Rajendra Prasad R/o Village- Bari Bazar, P.S-Kotwali, Dist-Munger .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagdish Prasad-1, Advocate For the Opp. Party/s : M/s. Pronti Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 16-07-2012 The petitioner has filed the present revision application under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), questioning the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment and order dated 7th April, 2010 passed in G.R. No. 1172 of 1997/ T.R. No. 2997 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui, whereby the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted for the charges under [STATUTE] by giving them benefits of doubts. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.912 of 2010 (2) dt.16-07-2012 2/3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the case was instituted for offences under [STATUTE] . besides other offences, and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have framed charge for the offence under [STATUTE] . also against the opposite parties. According to him, the same having not been done, the impugned judgment of acquittal is fit to be set aside. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State at great length, this Court finds that though the case was instituted for the offence under [STATUTE] , but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offence under [STATUTE] . only. No cognizance was taken for the offence under [STATUTE] . It appears that the petitioner did not challenge the order taking cognizance at any stage. That being so, the learned trial court has committed no error in not framing charge under [STATUTE] . This Court does not find any legal error in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.912 of 2010 (2) dt.16-07-2012 3/3 Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, 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.