Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16389 of 2010 (3) dt.19-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16389 of 2010 ====================================================== Kapildeo Paswan, son of Late Punni Paswan, resident of village-Nainpatti, P.S.-Sri Nagar, District-Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Mania Devi, wife of Kapildeo Paswan, resident of village-Mainpatti, P.S.-Srinagar, District-Madhepura. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 3 19-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional P.P. In spite of appearance of Opposite Party No.2 through Vakalatnama she is represented by none. Petitioner has challenged the successive orders of learned lower court dated 01-04-2009 whereby and whereunder petitioner, Kapildeo Paswan along with Renu Devi has been summoned for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . while for remaining accused, who are not petitioner for the present, they were summoned for remaining offence excluding 498A of the I.P.C. by Sri R.S. Yadav, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhepura as well as order dated 03-07-2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Criminal Revision No.51 of 2000. Maniya Devi who happens to be legally wedded wife of petitioner and with whom she had begotten two Sibling, later on being kicked out by the petitioner when he had developed his lustful desire towards Renu Devi which was resisted by the complainant and for that she had already instituted case. In the aforesaid background on the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16389 of 2010 (3) dt.19-07-2012 alleged date and time of occurrence while the complainant along with her daughter and one other famale member was going to meet natures call, all the accused persons including petitioner assaulted her in the background of the fact that she had decline to oblige them by withdrawing the previous complaint petition. Simple grievance whatever been raised on behalf of petitioner is that no offence under [STATUTE] . is made out and therefore summoning of petitioner to the extent of [STATUTE] . appears to be bad. Learned Additional P.P. opposed the prayer and submitted that for the present purpose only prima facie case has to be seen which could be ascertained from the S.A. as well as statement of the witnesses. I have gone through the order of the Revisional court. Revisional court had rightly observed that the aforesaid theme has to be adjudicated upon at the stage of framing of charge. Because of the fact that at the present moment thrashing the issue will jeopardize the interest of either of the parties. With the liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue at the stage of framing of charge, instant petition is disposed of. PN/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 147

Statute Text:
Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting. Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.