Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27653 of 2008 Guleshwar Mahto son of Sri Suttu Mahto, resident of Village- Parsauni Uttari, Police Station-Bisphi, District-Madhubani. .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Saraswati Devi, wife of Ramashish Mahto, resident of Vllage- Parsauni, P.S.-Bisphi, District-Madhubani. .........Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 05 03.01.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. This application, under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, is to quash the order dated 01.03.2008, passed in Complaint Case No. 1006 of 2007 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, summoning the three accused including the petitioner, on enquiry, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] . The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that petitioner happens to be the brother-in-law of complainant-opposite party no. 2, Saraswati Devi, and has been falsely implicated in this case due to family dispute and in counter blast of Bisphi P.S. Case No. 84 of 2007, instituted on the basis of the First Information Report of the petitioner for the offence under [STATUTE] on 16.06.2007. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petition, S.A. of the complainant and statement of the witnesses, as examined in course of enquiry, arrived at conclusion that prima facie case under sections 2 341, 323, 452 and 380/34 is made out against Kameshwar Mahto and Bodh Mahto including the petitioner, Guleshwar Mahto and accordingly summoned all the accused in the complaint petition including the petitioner. There is nothing in the impugned order to show the abuse of the process of the Court to interfere with the same in inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the complaint case has been lodged due to counter blast of the case filed on behalf of petitioner is concerned, at the time of summoning the accused, the Magistrate/Court is only required to see as to whether on perusal of the complaint petition, S.A. of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and the statements of the witnesses prima facie case is made out or not. At that time the Magistrate/Court is not required to look into the defence of the accused. I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise his defence, raised herein, at appropriate stage in the trial Court. Safik (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 324

Statute Text:
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.