Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.21160 of 2011 1. Sita Ram Sah @ Sao 2. Kapildeo Sah @ Sao, both sons of Meghu Sah @ Sao, resident of village – Malaypur, P.S. – Barhat, District – Jamui. ……….. Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar ………. Opp. Party ---------------------------------- 3 11.01.2012 Heard Sri Prakash Mahto, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioners invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed for quashing of an order passed by learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 81 of 2011 whereby the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order dated 18.02.2011 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge 1st, Munger in Sessions Case No. 51 of 2005 arising out of Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 174 of 2001. By the said order the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence under [STATUTE] is made out and other offences for which charge sheet was submitted are triable by the court of Magistrate. I have perused the impugned order i.e. the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Learned Revisional Court while rejecting the petition 2 has made categorical observation after perusing of the case diary that prima facie case under [STATUTE] is made out. In this case cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] and other offences was taken on 26.04.2003 and thereafter on 17.12.2004 case was committed to the court of Sessions and subsequently petition was filed by the petitioners on 08.03.2007 which has been dismissed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. It appears that only on flimsy ground the petitioners had delayed commencement of the trial in the present case. The petitioners once lost their case before the Revisional Court was not entitled to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was primarily barred under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Besides this perusal of the order indicates that there were sufficient materials for charge under [STATUTE] . I do not find any merit in the present petition. The petition stands rejected with a direction to the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that trial may come to its logical end without any unnecessary delay. The petition stands dismissed. Praful ( 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.