Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.49211 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Raktu Chaudhary. 2. Nandlal Chaudhary. Both sons of Mahesh Chaudhary. 3. Mahendra Chaudhary. 4. Yogendra Chaudhary. 5. Suresh Chaudhary. 6. Awadhesh Chaudhary. 7. Yamuna Chaudhary. All 3 to 7 are sons of Rajgovind Chaudhary. 8. Rajbanshi Chaudhary. 9. Rajgovind Chaudhary. Both 8 to 9 sons of Raghuvir Chaudhary. All Resident of Village Mahesra, P.S. Gopalpur, District West Champaran at Bettiah. .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Janak Chaudhary, Son of Raghunandan Chaudhary, Resident of Village Mahesra, P.S. Gopalpur, District West Champaran at Bettiah. .... .... Opposite Parties Appearance: For the petitioners : Mr. Sumant Singh, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumr, Advocate For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER 5 08-02-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the informant and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. A complaint petition was filed on 25.1.2005 alleging that the petitioners on 22.1.2005 entered the field of the complainant and cut the sugarcane crops and trees standing on the field. It is also alleged that they assaulted the complainant by fists and slaps. After the witnesses were examined before charge, an application was filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49211 of 2008 (5) dt.08-02 Page 2 3/2 Procedure by the petitioners to discharge him from the offences alleged to have been committed under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the complainant come from a common ancestor and there is a land dispute between the parties. Earlier to the present case, another case was filed by the complainant in the year 1974 on similar allegations, which ended in an acquittal at the appellate stage. It is further submitted that the complaint had been filed after a delay of three years without there being any explanation for the said delay. Apart from which there is no medical evidence to indicate that an offence is made out under Section 323 of the Indian Penal code, apart from the oral evidence it does not tally with the complaint petition. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the plot number as disclosed in the complaint petition is not a field rather the Khatiyan would indicate that there is a river flowing on the said plot. Counsel for the complainant on the other hand submits that the land in question is a field and that these petitioners had earlier created disturbances over the said land and are in the habit of trying to demoralize the complainant. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49211 of 2008 (5) dt.08-02 Page 3 3/2 All these facts are disputed questions of facts and cannot be considered at this stage of the case. This application is thus, dismissed. Sanjay/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 147

Statute Text:
Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting. Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.