Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.710 of 2011 ====================================================== Manoj Sharma @ Manoj Kumar S/O Ramadhar Singh @ Ramadhar Sharma, R/O-Village, Tilaknagar, Rukunpura. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The S.H.O, P.S. Rupaspur, Patna. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.K. Sinha, Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Mr. Om Prakash, Advocates For the Respondent/s : SC-24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI CAV ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) 9 10-02-2012 Petitioner, Manoj Sharma @ Manoj Kumar has filed instant writ for quashing of FIR of Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 85/2010 as well as charge-sheet. 2. The brief fact of the case as is evident from Annexure-A which happens to be written report submitted by Ranjay Kumar disclosing therein that his son Saurabh Kumar aged about 10 years is a student of St.Karen’s School, Rukunpura of Class-III. On 29.11.2010 at about 7:00 A.M. while his son was proceeding towards school, his landlord, Ramadhar Singh, his son, Manoj Singh and grandsons, Sajay Kumar, Manish Kumar came, abused and then caught hold him. Manoj Kumar caught hold his hand and on an order of 2 Ramadhar Singh, pierced iron wire in his left eye. On an alarm raised by his son, he along with his mother, father and others came out and seen the occurrence. His landlord resides at upper floor while he is in occupation of ground floor on tenancy. The cause of the occurrence happens to be quarrel in between Saurabh Kumar, Govinda and Manish. Then, thereafter he took his son to Dr. Devan Akela and as per instruction, rushed to “Shankar Netralalaya”, Chennai. Therefore, the matter was not reported at an earliest. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 85/2010 was registered under [STATUTE] whereupon investigation was taken up and after concluding the same, charge-sheet was submitted under [STATUTE] whereupon vide order dated 18.4.2011 cognizance has been taken and the matter is pending for trial. 4. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that institution of the case happens to be contrary to the prescribed law because of the fact that none of the ingredients of grievous hurt as illustrated under [STATUTE] is fulfilled. As such institution of case followed with submission of charge- sheet under allied including [STATUTE] is not at all 3 maintainable. In likewise manner, it has been submitted that no offence under [STATUTE] is made out as the instrument whatever been alleged to have used during course of commission of crime happens to be the instrument for shooting, stabbing, cutting or any instrument which is used as weapon is likely to cause death or other kind of events is satisfied. So, even in worst case accepting that a case under [STATUTE] is made out, that happens to be non cognizable and for that the investigating authority was required to take permission from the Magistrate as provided under Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. which has not been taken by the Investigating Officer. Hence whole prosecution is bad in the eye of law. 5. In an alternative, placing relevant paragraphs of the relevant medical books detailing component of eye, submitted that there happens to be mere scratch over cornea which happens to be outer layer over eye ball and the same is not going to affect eyesight. Also submitted that whatever ailment has been detected at “Shankar Netralaya” that is not supported with the allegation whatever been alleged and therefore, continuance of the prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. So, instant prosecution appears to be non permissible in the eye of law, consequent 4 thereupon is fit to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred these following rulings:- 1. 1976 Cri L.J. 1247, 2. AIR 1968 SC 124, 3. AIR 1968 SC 117 4. 1989 Cri L.J. 1678 5. 1994 Cri L.J. 257 6. 1991 Cri L.J. 3329 7. On the other hand, learned S.C.24 vehemently opposed the submission advanced on behalf of petitioner and submitted that the prayer happens to be misconceived. Once investigation is concluded and charge-sheet is filed and the same is accepted, that means to say the cognizance taking court had found prima facie material available in the case diary on application of judicial mind followed with summoning of accused means identification of culprit responsible commission of the aforesaid crime. When cognizance had already been taken then in that event, unless and until the said order is put to challenge, the FIR and the charge-sheet in the changed situation cannot be quashed as the stage of the case has proceeded a step forward. So submitted that the prayer of 5 the petitioner appears to be non tenable in the eye of law and is accordingly fit to be rejected. 8. Certainly, when after conclusion of investigation charge-sheet is submitted followed with taking of cognizance on the basis thereof, the order of cognizance is also required to be challenged because of the fact that all the event happens to be inter-linked in such a way that they are inseparable. 9. So far application of writ jurisdiction is concerned, State of Hariyana & Ors v. Bhajan Lal & Ors as reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. appears to be a lamp post for adjudicating upon the matter in hand. Following criteria have been fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court for the purpose of quashing of proceeding either under writ jurisdiction or under inherent power as prescribed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. For better appreciation the same is incorporated hereinafter:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not

Applicable IPC Section: 326

Statute Text:
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.