Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40849 of 2010 (3) dt.03-04-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.40849 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Fekani Khatoon w/o Md. Mustaque 2. Md. Pappu s/o Md. Mustaque 3. Md. Mustaque s/o Md. Shafique 4. Md. Foulad s/o Md. Rafique 5. Shabnam Begum d/o Md. Mustaque 6. Md. Israil s/o Md. Akhlakh 7. Siriya d/o Md. Mustaque, All residents of village Marui, P.S. Roh, Distt-Nawadah .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Jahana Khatoon w/o Md. Alam, Resident of Village-Marui, P.S. Roh, Distt-Nawadah .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Parvesh Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 3 03-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 2. Petitioners have challenged order dated 22.01.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 194/2008 whereby and whereunder all the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for offence punishable under [STATUTE] and further Md.Guddu and Md. Pappu have also been summoned to face trial for offence punishable under Sections 323, 379, 436/34, 377 Cr.P.C. 3. Referring Annexure-2, FIR of Roh P.S. Case No.19 of 2007 instituted on the written report of Shabnam Begum @ Sahanu w/o one of the petitioners Md. Mushtaque Ahmad, mother of petitioners Md. Pappu and Md. Guddu, it has been submitted that instant case has been filed out of malice and grudge and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40849 of 2010 (3) dt.03-04-2012 further to coerce the petitioners to compromise aforesaid case which is proceeding with trial. 4. So far merit of the case is concerned, It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that two dates of occurrence have been shown but there happens to be no cogent and reliable explanation regarding non filing of the case for the first occurrence which was committed on 25.02.2008 and so there happens to be delay of four dates from the first occurrence without any explanation. As such, the order impugned is fit to be set aside. 5. Learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no illegality apparent from the order impugned. 6. Enmity is a double edged sword. It may be a cause for commission of an offence. Simultaneously, it may be a cause for false implication. So far present case is concerned, the first occurrence happens to be of the year 2007 and the present one happens to be about a year thereafter. 7. With regard to propriety of the order impugned, even learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any sort of defect. I have also gone through the order impugned and found that same is in accordance with law. Consequent thereupon, the instant petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.