Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35127 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Pandav Mahto @ Pandav Kumar son of Late Raghunandan Mahto 2. Brajesh Kumar son of Late Nand Kishore Mahto 3. Sunil Kumar Mehta @ Sunil Kumar son of Janardan Mahto All resident of village; Bachhauta, P.S. Morkahi, District-Khagaria .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Parmanand Prabhakar son of Late Jaya Prasad resident of village: Bachhauta, P.S. Morkahi, District-Khagaria .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 2 04-05-2012 Heard Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners have questioned the order dated 8.6.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Cr.Rev.No.82 of 2009 whereby the learned Sessions Judge while allowing the criminal revision of the informant-complainant has been pleased to set aside the order dated 16.10.2009 passed by Sri Deo Priya Kumar learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khagaria in Complaint Case No. 11C of 2007 whereby the learned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint case under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’) and the matter has been remitted back to the learned Court below under Section 398 of the Code for passing fresh order in accordance with Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35127 of 2010 (2) dt.04-05-2012 2 / 3 2 law after further enquiry. It is the case of the petitioners that an F.I.R. was instituted by the informant-complainant-opposite party No.2 giving rise to Gogari (Maheshkhut) P.S .Case No. 87 of 2005 registered for offences punishable under [STATUTE] . The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. along with some others. The matter having been investigated by the police, a final form was submitted on 30.04.2006 (Annexure-2) holding the allegation a mistake of fact. During the course of investigation, the informant apprehending absence of proper investigation, filed a protest-cum-complaint on 20.04.2005. The learned Magistrate while accepting the final form submitted by the Investigating agency, directed for registration of the protest-cum- complaint giving rise to Case No. 11C of 2007. During the course of inquiry under Section 202 the informant- complainant examined seven witnesses all of whom were hearsay witnesses as none had seen the occurrence. Holding the evidence led during enquiry as improbable, the complaint petition was dismissed on 16.10.2009 (Annexure-4). A criminal revision was preferred by the informant -complainant giving rise to Cr.Rev.No.82 of 2009 and the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 8.6.2010 having considered the matter, was pleased to set aside the order dated Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35127 of 2010 (2) dt.04-05-2012 3 / 3 3 16.10.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khagaria on grounds that opinion expressed by the learned Magistrate that the occurrence appears highly improbable, did not satisfy the requirements for dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. Holding as such, the matter was remanded for further enquiry under Section 398 of the Code. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Revisional Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners are also not in a position to inform this Court as to whether the matter has progressed thereafter. In that view of the matter no interference is called for in the order dated 8.6.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Cr.Rev.No.82 of 2009 and this application is accordingly disposed of. Bibhash/- (Jyoti Saran, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.