Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.296 of 2011 ====================================================== 1.Kamru Jama son of Late Majaharul Haque. 2.Shamshu Jama. 3.Nasru Jama, Both sons of Kamru Jama. 4.Karamat Ali son of Late Aual Mian, All residents of village Ekwari, P.S.Sahar in the district of Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioners. 1.The State Of Bihar. 2.Md. Jiyaur Rahman son of Late Md. Gulam Gaus, Resident of village Ekwari, P.S.Sahar in the district of Bhojpur, .... .... Opposite Parties Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 14.03.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the informant. 2. In the present case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 17th July 2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara in G.R.No. 2566 of 2007/Tr.No. 3200 of 2008 whereby and whereunder notices have been issued to the petitioners in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, „the Code‟) on the ground that there are sufficient materials against the petitioners which have come in course of trial. 3. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 151 of 2010 and learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara after considering the material on the record and also examining the evidence which has come during the trial, dismissed the revision application and against that the present Cr.Misc. application has been filed making a prayer to quash the order of Sessions Judge as well as the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara. 4. In the present case, an FIR was lodged by one Jiyaur Rahman against (1) Kamru Jama, (2) Shamshu Jama, (3) Sadru Jama, (4) Nasru Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.296 of 2011 (3) 2 / 12 2 Jama, (5) Sharafat, (6) Ekrarul Haque,(7) Abdul Hasan, (8) Kamarat Ali, (9) Riyazuddin and (10) Salamat Ali. The allegation made in the FIR is that the ancestral house of the informant was standing over plot no. 3867, apperratining to Khata No. 40, measuring an area of 2 decimals and the said land was recorded in the name of grand-father of the informant, namely Animul Haque. It has been said that the neighbors of the informant, namely, petitioner Kamru Jama and Abbas Ali have been laying claim over the said land forcibly with respect to which, a case was also instituted in court which was decided in favour of the informant and due to the said reasons, parties became annoyed and attempted to harass the informant. On the alleged date of occurrence, the accused persons entered into the house and hurled abuses and challenged that even though the informant had won the case, it is hardly any mater. When the informant raised alarm, his son Fidaur Rahman @ Arju and his nephew Afroz Alam rushed to the place and they were also assaulted by the accused persons causing them injuries. It has further been averred in the FIR that they entered into the house and took away Rs.25,000/- but with the intervention of Hafiz, Md. Kalimuddin and Kurban Ali, the matter could be sorted out at the relevant time and the reason has been assigned of old land dispute. In pursuance of this FIR, the case was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted in which Md. Sadru Jama, Sharafat Hussain, Md. Salamat, Ekrarul Haque, Md. Abdul Hasan and Md. Riyazuddin, were charge-sheeted whereas with respect to Shamshu Jama, Nasru Jama,Kamru Jama and Karamat Ali Police submitted final form. Cognizance was taken against those accused and they were sent up for trial for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] . With regard to removal of articles and cash, allegation was found to be false. During the trial, Md. Afroz Ali (P.W.1), Arju (P.W.2) and Md. Fidaur Rahman (P.W.3) Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.296 of 2011 (3) 3 / 12 3 were examined and in course of evidence, they have taken the names of petitioners making allegation against them also. 5. The informant of this case, filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. stating therein the fact that during the trial, the witnesses have directly named the petitioners involved in the alleged incident and those statements are sufficient for conviction of the petitioners and, accordingly the court below issued summonses which were challenged but failed before the Sessions Judge. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below has wrongly exercised the power under Section 319 of the Code, as there was no sufficient material which may lead to conviction of petitioners and the court [STATUTE] sued summons to the petitioners under Section 319 of the Code. 7. The primary object of Section 319 of the Code is that there should have been sufficient materials brought during the enquiry or trial which on its own merit may lead to conviction, but in the present case, there is no material before the trial court in terms of Section 319 of the Code. There may be some evidence which is an exaggeration as those statements have not been recorded by the Police during the investigation and, as such, this Court should quash the notice issued. 8. Learned counsel for the State and informant submitted that in course of trial, witnesses have directly named these petitioners as persons involved in the alleged occurrence and looking to the material facts which came during trial of this case, there is every likelihood of conviction of the petitioners and, as such, submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is completely fallacious. 9. Now the basic issue that has been raised in this petition is about the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.296 of 2011 (3) 4 / 12 4 parameter in which the trial court can issue summons to the petitioners who are not facing the trial and this issue is no longer res integra, as this Court as well as the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has thread b

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.