Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.44294 of 2009 ====================================================== Anirudh Singh, son of Late Sheetal Prasad Singh, resident of village Mohabbat Parsa, P.S. Revelganj, District Chapra (Saran). .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ram Kumar Singh, son of Late Chandrika Singh 3. Satyendra Singh 4. Jitendra Singh, Both sons of Ram Kumar Singh 5. Rajiv Kumar, son of Satyadeo Singh 6. Indu Devi, wife of Satyendra Singh. All residents of village Mohabbat Parsa, P.S. Revelganj, District Chapra (Saran). .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 29-03-2012 Heard Shri Binod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 8.9.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No.340 of 2008 by learned F.T.C.-III, Saran, Chapra, whereby the learned trial court had allowed the petition filed on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44294 of 2009 (3) dt.29-03-2012 2 / 3 2 behalf of the accused persons under Section 228(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after finding that offence under [STATUTE] was not made out and other offences were triable by the court of Magistrate, remitted back the matter to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra for trial according to law. The petitioner was not an informant, but son of informant. At the time of argument, it was candidly admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that prima facie in the impugned order, there is no illegality, but it was submitted that since there were case and counter case in between the parties, it was desirable that both cases should have been tried by the same court i.e. court of learned Sessions Court. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is mis-conceived. If there is no illegality in the impugned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44294 of 2009 (3) dt.29-03-2012 3 / 3 3 order, there is no requirement to keep the matter pending. The petition stands dismissed. N.H./- (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.