Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.728 of 2009 ====================================================== Pramod Kumar, son of Sri Deonandan Prasad, resident of Village Nijamdipur, Police Station Jehanabad, District Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Nirjesh Kumar @ Niraj, son of Harendra Sharma, resident of Village Imadpur, P.S. Hulasganj, District Jehanabad .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, Addl.P.P. For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 12-10-2012 By an order dated 4.4.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, in connection with Jehanabad P.S.Case No. 372 of 2007, cognizance was taken under [STATUTE] . The aforesaid order dated 4.4.2008 was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad in Cr. Revision No. 43 of 2008 ( Nirjesh Kumar @ Niraj Vs. The State of Bihar). The aforesaid revision application has finally been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad by the impugned order dated 24.1.2009 and order taking Patna High Court CR. REV. No.728 of 2009 (5) dt.12-10-2012 2 / 3 2 cognizance has been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, for passing a fresh order. In view of the aforesaid remand order, the learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, has passed a fresh order on 13.2.2009 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal code. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid revisional order dated 24.1.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad and the consequential order dated 13.2.2009 taking cognizance under [STATUTE] against the accused petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrae, Jehanabad, has preferred the present revision application before this Court questioning the validity of the aforesaid two orders. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that during the pendency of the revision application, now stage of trial has changed. Charge has been framed against the petitioner and the trial has commenced. P.W.1 was examined on 6.10.2010 and P.W. 2 has been examined on 9.12.2010. Thereafter, in view of the order of stay dated 13.1.2011 passed by a Bench of this Court, the trial is not progressing. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.728 of 2009 (5) dt.12-10-2012 3 / 3 3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid factual position. In view of the fact that there has been change of stage due to framing of charge against the petitioner and commencement of trial, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional powers to consider the validity or otherwise of the order taking cognizance. In the result, the application stands dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the issues during the course of trial before the learned trial court regarding application or non-application of particular offence against him with respect to commission of crime in question. Let the certified copy of depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2 produced, during the course of hearing of the case, by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2, be kept on record. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 304

Statute Text:
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, If act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, etc. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.