IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.106 of 2002 Mostt. Raga Kunwar @ Raj Devi @ Rajwa Devi Wife of Late Ram Dayal Mahto resident of village Dighwara P.S.Dighwara Dist.Saran Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ram Das Mahto S/o Late Misri Mahto 3. Sabha Devi W/o Ram Das Mahto Both resident of village Dighwara P.S.Dighwara Dist.Saran Opposite parties ---------- 5 31.07.2009 No one appears to press this application. FIR is to the effect that while the informant- petitioner was at his door, there occurred some altercations with opposite party no.3. She abused also. Thereafter opposite party no.2 ordered and opposite party no.3 assaulted by means of lathi and danta. After the trial conviction was ordered for the offence under section 323 IPC only and opposites parties were released after admonition I have perused the revision petition and the impugned order. In the revision petition, submissions are in two folds: Firstly, conviction should be reached for the offence under section 324 IPC also and secondly, no relief should be given under the Probation of Offenders Act. In corroboration of the first point, it is stated that in course of trial witnesses came and deposed about using of Garasi but that was found vague at the earlier stage of the trial and that also the learned Magistrate said that the evidence was lacking for any injury caused by Garasi rather lathi and danta were used. As about giving relief on the point of sentence, it is admitted case that wife of the parties are neither criminal by nature nor having any criminal antecedent rather quarrel 2 was on trivial matter that resulted into simple assault in between two ladies. Implication of third one is about his ordering only that was the relevant to justify leniency taken by the court itself. I find no illegality in the impugned order committed by the learned Magistrate at any corner. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. ( Mandhata Singh, J) shahid