Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13764 of 2012 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar son of Sri Chaturbhuj Singh, resident of village-Sakarware, Tola, Noor, Tukra No.2, P.S. Gaighat, District-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 2 03-04-2012 Heard Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha No.3, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2011 passed by Sri G.R. Tripathi, learned Additional Sessions Judge- IV, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Revision No. 53 of 2011 whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to dismiss the revision application preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur to the extent the learned Magistrate has not been pleased to take cognizance of the offence punishable under [STATUTE] while taking cognizance of the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13764 of 2012 (2) dt.03-04-2012 2 / 3 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the allegation made in the F.I.R. submits that the assault by the accused on the vital portion of the body being the scalp of the informant, the allegation finds support from the injury report present at Annexure-2 which attributes no less than 3 injuries on the head of the informant of which injury Nos. 1 and 2 have been opined as being danger to the life of the informant although the injuries otherwise have been termed as simple in nature. The police upon investigation submitted chargesheet under [STATUTE] against the accused persons. The cognizance was taken in the light of the chargesheet submitted by the police. It is a contention of the petitioner that considering the nature of injury and the case having been instituted also under [STATUTE] , learned Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance of the said offence also and it is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the criminal revision application in question bearing Cr. Rev. No. 53 of 2011 was preferred by the petitioner which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Muzaffarpur by the order impugned dated 27.08.2011 has disposed of affording liberty to the petitioner to raise all the issues as raised before the Revisional Court at the stage of framing of charge/substance of accusation. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13764 of 2012 (2) dt.03-04-2012 3 / 3 3 The provisions of Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also amply empowers the Magistrate to take appropriate decision for commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, even after commencement of inquiry or trial provided the circumstances so exist and the Magistrate is so satisfied. Regard being had to the circumstances as also the liberty afforded to the petitioner by the learned Revisional Court below, no indulgence is called for in the impugned order and this application is accordingly disposed of. Bibhash/- (Jyoti Saran, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.