Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.22017 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ram Jinis Singh , son of Late Saryug Singh 2. Sanjeet Singh, son of Ram Jinis Singh, Both residents of Village-Kali, Police Station-Bisanpur, District- Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Ravindra Singh, son of Late Jeewachh Singh, resident of Village- Kali, Police Station-Bisanpur, District-Darbhanga .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ----------------------- 3 27-11-2012 Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Chandra Mohan Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 21.05.2011 passed by the learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.187 of 2010 arising out of Bishanpur P.S. Case No.82 of 2006 registered for the offence under [STATUTE] . By the said order, the learned court below has rejected the petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge of the petitioners. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22017 of 2011 (3) dt.27-11-2012 2 / 3 2 It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that though the petitioners were named in the F.I.R, the police had exonerated them during investigation. However, the learned Magistrate differing with the police report has taken cognizance of offence. He submits that there was no sufficient material for putting the petitioners on trial and, as such, the petition for discharge was filed, which has been rejected by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in a mechanical manner. However, at the time of hearing, it was candidly accepted that after the order impugned, charges have already been framed. Meaning thereby, the case is at the trial stage. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record. From the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate discussing the material on record, while referring number of paragraphs of the case diary, has rejected the petition for discharge of the petitioners. Prima facie, I do not find any apparent defect in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The petition stands dismissed. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22017 of 2011 (3) dt.27-11-2012 3 / 3 3 It is made clear that this order may not prejudice the trial court, while proceeding with the case. The liberty is granted to the petitioners to raise all the points, which have been raised in the present petition, at the defence stage. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 148

Statute Text:
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting armed with deadly Weapon. Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.