Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25516 of 2008 ===================================================== 1. Shaukat Ali alias Saukat, son of Safi Mohamad. 2. Md. Adham Ali, son of Salim Jat. 3. Lalu Jat alias Lallu, son of Abdul Hakim. 4. Nasir Jat alias Nasir, son of Lalu Jat. All are resident of village-Sasaram, Police Station-Bisfi, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ram Dulari Devi, wife of Bhola Paswan, village-Sasaram, P.S. Bisfi, District-Madhubani. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. C. Sudharshan Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy-I, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER ---------------- 9 7-03-2012 The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 26.2.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No.18 of 1998 by the court of Special Judge, Madhubani, rejecting the application dated 26.7.2006 of the accused-petitioners to amend the charge by deleting [STATUTE] and also to quash the entire criminal proceedings by filing the supplementary affidavit of the aforesaid Sessions Trial. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made submission that on the basis of the written report of the opposite party no.2, Ram Dulari Devi, Bisfi P.S. Case No.154 of 1995 was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25516 of 2008 (9) dt.07-03-2012 2 / 4 2 registered under [STATUTE] and Section 3(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on 27.10.2005 against the ten accused including the petitioners. After investigation, police submitted the chargesheet only under [STATUTE] and also Section 3(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and, accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, took the cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections only. After commitment of the case, the charge under [STATUTE] has also been framed in addition to other Penal Sections, while there was no material in the case diary to constitute the offence under [STATUTE] . The learned Special Judge, Madhubani, again rejected the application of the accused-petitioners to amend the charge by deleting [STATUTE] in course of trial without proper appreciation of material in the case diary. It has also been submitted that the cognizance order dated 4.9.1996 passed in Complaint Case No.204 of 1996 filed by the opposite party no.2 against the accused including the petitioners had already been quashed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 19th of March, 2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.18109 of 1998, due to admitted Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25516 of 2008 (9) dt.07-03-2012 3 / 4 3 land dispute, which would appear from Annexure-‘4’ to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, so the entire criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.18 of 1998 should be quashed on that ground. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 made submission that in Sessions Trial No.18 of 1998, the learned Special Judge, Madhubani, on perusal of the materials available in the case diary framed the charge under [STATUTE] in addition to [STATUTE] and also Section 3(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and in this case, eight witnesses including the Investigating Officer have been examined, so the application, as filed on behalf of the petitioners to delete [STATUTE] by amending the Charge, was baseless and the same was filed only to linger on the proceedings, which has been rejected by the Special Judge rightly through the impugned order. It has also been submitted that so far as the quashing of the cognizance order dated 4.9.1996 in Complaint Case No.204 of 1996 filed by the opposite party no.2 against the accused including the petitioners by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 19th of March, 2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.18109 of 1998, is concerned, that would not be a ground to quash Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25516 of 2008 (9) dt.07-03-2012 4 / 4 4 the entire criminal proceedings of the Sessions Trial No.18 of 1998. 4. From the impugned order dated 26.2.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Madhubani, in Sessions Trial No.18 of 1998, it appears that the learned Special Judge on perusal of the case diary, framed the charge under [STATUTE] in addition to [STATUTE] and also Section 3(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Admittedly, in this case eight witnesses including the Investigating Officer have already been examined in course of trial. As such, I find no illegality in the aforesaid impugned order dated 26.2.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Madhubani, in Sessions Trial No.18 of 1998, rejecting the application of the accused-petitioners to amend the charge deleting [STATUTE] , amounting to abuse of the process of the court for interference in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the issues, as raised herein, at the appropriate stage in the trial court. P.S./- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.