Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28039 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Dipu Kumar 2. Laloo Kumar @ Santosh Kumar both sons of Jai Narayan Pd. Gupta @ Jai Narayan Gupt. 3. Kiran Devi W/O Jai Narayan Prasad Gupt. 4. Suman Devi 5. Chunnu Kumari @ Rinki Kumari Both daughters of Jai Narayan Pd. Gupta @ Jai Narayan Gupt., All residents of Block Road Mashaudhi P.S. Mashaudhi, Distt- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dronacharya, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI CAV ORDER 4 16-04-2012 Petitioners have challenged order dated 15.04.2010 passed by SDJM, Masaurhi in connection with Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 51/2010 whereby and whereunder petitioners have been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . 2. Gudia Devi filed a written report before O/C, Masaurhi P.S. on 07.02.2010 disclosing therein that on the same date at about 1:30 P.M. while she was sitting over her roof, her neighbour Kiran Devi, her elder daughter Suman Devi, younger daughter, Chunnu Kumari came there and indulged in scuffle on the pretext that as to why she was seeing towards them. During midst thereof her son Dipu Kumar and Laloo Kumar came and 2 joined and further gave knife blow causing injury upon her person. On her alarm, her brother came seeing whom the accused persons began to flee and during said course, Dipu Kumar fell from roof. Laloo Kumar snatched away her chain. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 51/2010 was registered under [STATUTE] and investigation commenced thereupon and after concluding the same, charge-sheet was submitted only against Dipu Kumar and Laloo Kumar under [STATUTE] while petitioners Kiran Devi, Suman Devi and Chunnu Kumari were not sent up for trial. The learned SDJM after going through the case diary summoned all of them, hence arose a cause for filing instant petition. 4. Contentions on behalf of the petitioners are that the order passed by the learned lower court is bad in law as well as on facts hence is fit to be set aside. Further submitted that the instant case has purposely been filed by Gudia Devi to meet out the allegation as leveled by his father on account of assault as well as throwing of Dipu Kumar from roof with an intention to kill for which Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 50/2010 was registered under [STATUTE] (Annexure-1). Further submitted that while petitioner Dipu Kumar was under going 3 treatment at Patna Medical College Hospital, his statement was recorded on 12.02.2010(Annexure-3). Referring (Annexure-4) injury report of petitioner, Dipu Kumar it has been submitted that all those things prima facie support the case of the petitioners. On the other hand, as per injury report Annexure-5, the informant Gudia Devi has sustained single superficial injury being abrasion over the left side at lower abdomen of the size .5CmX.2Cm and the aforesaid injury report coupled with the written report of Masaurhi P.S. Case No. 51/2010, it is crystal clear that the instant case has motivatedly been filed by way of counter blast just to save their skin. Hence, it has been submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned is fit to be quashed along with the prosecution. 5. On the other hand, learned APP while counter meeting with the submission made on behalf of the petitioners submitted that present stage did not require consideration of defence case. The cognizance taking courts are required only to see whether a prima facie case is visualizing from the materials so submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C by the police and in case, the court comes to a conclusion to the said effect, the said order cannot be interfered with. 6. In a recent decision reported in 2012 (2) SCC 188 the 4 scope of Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. has been taken into consideration along with its propriety to be adjudicated upon by the Superior Courts. For that it is better to quote the relevant paragraphs and i.e. 16, 17, 18, 19 which are as follows:- “16. Section 190 of the Code lays down the conditions which are requisite for the initiation of a criminal proceeding. At this stage the Magistrate is required to exercise sound judicial discretion and apply his mind to the facts and materials before him. In doing so, the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the investigating officer and he is competent to exercise his discretion irrespective of the views expressed by the police in its report and may prima facie find out whether an offence has been made out or not” “17. The taking of cognizance means the point in time when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence which appears to have been committed. At the stage of taking of cognizance of offence, the court has only to see whether prima facie there are reasons for issuing the process and whether the ingredients of the offence are there on record” “18. The principles relating to taking of cognizance in a criminal matter has been very lucidly explained by this Court in Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd.3, the relevant observations wherefrom are set out: (SCCp.499, paras 19 & 20)” “19. The expression ‘cognizance’ has not been defined in the Code. But the word (cognizance) is of indefinite import. It has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law. It merely means ‘become aware of’ and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes ‘to take notice of judicially’. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate

Applicable IPC Section: 325

Statute Text:
Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.