Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.34521 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Vivek Saw son of Kul Deep Saw 2. Anuj Singh, son of Late Nag Deo Singh. 3. Harendra Singh, son of Ram ji Singh 4. Dhanjay Singh, son of Raghubir Singh. 5. Dharmendra Singh, son of Jag Mohan Singh. 6. Chandan Singh, son of Vijay Singh. 7. Ajay Gupta @ Ajay Saw, son of Ram Bilash Saw. All are residents of village-Chandra Gerh, Police Station –Nabi Nagar, District-Aurangabad .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. State f Bihar 2. Pappu Mishra son of Prem Chandra Mishra, Resident of village-Chandra garh, Police Station-Nabi Nagar, District- Aurangabad .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 2 25-04-2012 Heard Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners have questioned the order dated 8.12.2009 in a case arising out of Nabi Nagar P.S. Case No.34 of 2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and which order was affirmed when the Cr.Rev.No.03 of 2010/01 of 2010 was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad by order dated 23.07.2010. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34521 of 2010 (2) dt.25-04-2012 2 / 2 2 It is the contention of the petitioners that the injury report on record of the proceedings do not reflect an offence punishable under Section 307 and that the supplementary injury report being relied upon by the prosecution to constitute a charge under Section 307 was never brought on the record of the proceedings and thus even in absence of relevant materials, the learned Court below has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 307. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also taking into consideration the nature of allegation made in the F.I.R. and the injury report reproduced in the order of the Revisional Court, this Court is of the opinion that without going into the merits of the contention, the application can be disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to raise his contentions at the stage of framing of charge and which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. With the observation aforesaid this application is disposed of. Bibhash/- (Jyoti Saran, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 148

Statute Text:
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting armed with deadly Weapon. Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.