Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.44039 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Madhuri Devi W/O Bindeshwari Prasad, R/O Manorah, P.S- Punpun, Distt- Patna 2. Dharmsheela Devi W/O Ram Prit Yadav R/O Manorah, P.S- Punpun, Distt- Patna 3. Pushpa Devi W/O Ram Prit Yadav, R/O Manorah, P.S- Punpun, Distt- Patna .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Braj Kishore Pd. S/O Late Ram Roop Pd. R/O Manorah, P.S- Punpun, Distt- Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Virendra Kumar Rai Mr. Arun Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 28-03-2012 Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hriday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Three 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 21.11.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1673 of 2008 arising out of Punpun P.S. Case No. 40 of 2007 registered for the offence under [STATUTE] . By the said order the learned court below has rejected the petition filed on behalf of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44039 of 2009 (2) dt.28-03-2012 2 / 2 2 the petitioners and other accused persons filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for their discharge. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was counter blast of a case which was lodged by the petitioners’ side against the informant side of the present case. He further submits that two days delay occurred in lodging the present F.I.R. The petitioners are lady and there were no materials against them to connect them in the present case. I have perused the materials available on record as well as the impugned order. After going through the impugned order the court is satisfied that the learned court below has committed no error by dismissing the discharge petition. I do not find any material to interfere with the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed. It goes without saying that the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all the points at the stage of argument. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.