Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.6192 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Devjeet Kumar Singh S/O Arun Kumar Singh, Resident Of Village- Olapur Gangaur, P.S- Khagaria (Gangaur), District- Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Superintendent of Police, Khagaria. 3. Officer in Charge, Gangaur, P.S- Distt- Khagaria. 4. Laxman Singh, ASI & I.O. of the case(Gangaur),Khagaria P.S., Distt- Khagaria. 5. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (6) Madhu Kishore Singh and (7) Randhir Singh, all sons of late Yogendra Naran Singh of village Olapur Gangaur, PS-Gangaur, Distt- Khagaria. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dronacharya, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rakesh Chandra, Adv. For the State Mr. M. Haque, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 11 10-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner has filed the application for giving a direction to the respondents to file the injury reports of Tarun Kumar Singh and Mastana Singh issued by P.M.C.H., Patna before the court below and also for a direction to take cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] and to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Filtering unnecessary fact, it appears that a case bearing Khagaria (Gangaur) P.S. Case No. 116 of 2008 was instituted by one Devjeet Kr. Singh where the allegation has been made against the accused persons of committing loot and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6192 of 2011 (11) dt.10-09-2012 2 / 6 2 assaulted to uncle and the cousin mercilessly. The F.I.R. was instituted under [STATUTE] and the Police in connivance with accused persons submitted the charge sheet under [STATUTE] . The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the direction of the court, the Police official did not submit the injury reports of P.M.C.H., Patna of Mastana Singh, cousin and Tarun Pd. Singh, uncle. It has been submitted that they were treated in P.M.C.H. for about one month. Tarun Pd. Singh was admitted on 13.3.2008 and was released on 6.8.2008 where he had undergone operation by Dr. Captain Dilip Kr. Sinha and Dr. A.S. Sinha. The counsel for the petitioner is not sure about the Doctor who had treated Mastana Singh. This Court issued notices to the private opposite parties as well as directed the State counsel to file counter affidavit on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. In pursuance of direction, Mr. Laxman Kr. Singh, Investigating Officer of the case and also the private opposite party Nos. 5 to 7 appeared and filed their respective counter affidavits and in their counter affidavits they have primarily stated Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6192 of 2011 (11) dt.10-09-2012 3 / 6 3 that the Police official while submitting the charge sheet had also filed all injury reports including the reports issued by the P.M.C.H., Patna. It has been stated that the petitioner and opposite party Nos. 5 to 7 are own agnates and have been litigating altogether 21 cases and allegations made against Police personnel are completely vexatious, in order to put pressure on police with an intention to get undue favour from them. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the allegation that has been made against the Police official is completely wrong and the police has investigated the case as per the established law and never suppressed or never withheld any medical report issued by the concerned Hospitals. The counsel for the State has submitted as per the records of the case, it creates a doubt about the admission of Tarun Pd. Singh in P.M.C.H. because as from injury report, Annexure-2, it appears that Tarun Pd. Singh was referred to P.M.C.H. on 12.3.2008 whereas Discharge Ticket of Tarun Pd. Sinha, Annexure-3, shows that he was admitted at P.M.C.H. on 25.4.2008 and was discharged on 6.5.2008. The statement made in paragraph 6 of this petition shows that Tarun Pd. Singh was operated in P.M.C.H. on 26.3.2008 which appears to be false. In Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6192 of 2011 (11) dt.10-09-2012 4 / 6 4 reply, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on various documents, part of supplementary affidavit pertaining to his treatment at P.M.C.H. (Annexure-10, 11, 12, 13 series and 14). The issue, whether the petitioner was operated or not is not an issue before this Court, so this Court leaves this issue to be decided by the trial court. Only the issue that has been raised during the argument is, whether opposite parties have tampered the case diary and records of the case? As the order dated 16.6.2009 (Annexure-6) shows that the court below had directed the Police official to submit the medical reports and this order shows that the case diary was submitted upto paragraph 52 but no medical report of Tarun Pd. Singh and Mastan Singh pertaining to their treatment at P.M.C.H. was submitted before the court below and the court below vide order dated 16.9.2009 directed to submit the same so that the cognizance of the offence could be taken. The order dated 12.11.2009 Annexure-8, also shows, upto 12.11.2009 the medical reports of Mastana Singh and Tarun Pd. Singh were not on record and the court had directed to call for the reports from the P.M.C.H. through special messenger and the counsel for the petitioner submits that accordingly on 11.3.2009 Rs. 400/- was deposited for bringing the medical reports from the P.M.C.H. The counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6192 of 2011 (11) dt.10-09-2012 5 / 6 5 on a letter Annexure-7 written Sri Laxaman Singh, I.O. to the Superintendent of P.M.C.H., Patna where it has been mentioned that the injury reports of Mastana Singh and Ta

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.