Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21171 of 2010 ================================================== Umesh Prasad Bhagat, Son of Late Ram Pyare Bhagat, resident of village- Bhadariya, P.S.-Amarpur, District- Banka. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Krishnanad Bhagat, Son of Ram Pyar Bhagat 3. Suresh Bhagat, Son of Ram Pyar Bhagat 4. Savitri Devi Wife of Suresh Bhagat 5. Rani Kumari, D/o Krishna Bhagat All residents of village-Bhadariya, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka. .... .... Opposite Parties ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3. 18-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Chandra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The petitioner, who is informant in Amarpur P.S. Case No. 49 of 2002, registered for the offences under [STATUTE] and subsequently, in case charge-sheet was submitted under [STATUTE] , has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash order dated 09-12-2009 passed by learned A.D.J., F.T.C.-V, Banka (hereinafter referred to as “FTC-V”), whereby, the learned FTC-V has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21171 of 2010 (3) dt.18-09-2012 2 / 3 2 rejected the Criminal Revision No. 395 of 2007, preferred by the petitioner. The Criminal Revision was preferred against order dated 27-09-2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Banka, in G.R. No. 252 of 2002 (Tr. No. 796 of 2007). By the said order, learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From order dated 27-09-2007, it is evident that on the oral prayer on behalf of prosecution, prosecution case was closed on 01-09-2007 and thereafter, case was fixed for recording statement of the accused persons. Thereafter a petition was filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same has been rejected by the learned Magistrate purely on the ground that such petition was filed only with a view to delay the conclusion of the trial. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court, by assigning reasons, has rejected the same. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21171 of 2010 (3) dt.18-09-2012 3 / 3 3 Keeping in view the fact that F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2002 for the offences alleged, the Court is of the opinion that there is no ground for interference with either of the orders. The petition stands dismissed. Anay (Rakesh Kumar, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.