IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27742 of 2009 Umesh Singh Versus The State Of Bihar --------- 2 03.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.2.2009 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTC No. V, Siwan in Sessions Trial no.367/2007 arising out of Darauli P.S. Case no. 78/2004 by which he rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner and other accused persons under section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It would appear from perusal of the record that the above stated Darauli P.S. Case no. 78/2004 was registered under sections 447, 341,323, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and other accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under section 307 and other minor sections of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, after taking cognizance case was committed to the court of Sessions. Petitioner and other accused were put on trial but before framing of the charge, petition under section 228 Cr.P.C was filed praying therein that no case under section 307 of the IPC is made out. So, trial of the petitioner be sent to competent court. The aforesaid petition was rejected by the court below passing impugned order against which this petition has been filed. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that injured has received simple injury and in the first information report, it 2 is stated that farsa was used in committing the alleged crime but doctor who examined the injured did not find any farsa injury and, therefore, the aforesaid fact clearly indicates lack of intention of the petitioner and other accused to commit murder of the injured person of this case. Having heard the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the record, I find from perusal of the impugned order that learned Addl. Sessions Judge has discussed all the above stated aspects in his order. So far as contradiction of the first information report as well as medical report is concerned, in my view, the aforesaid fact would be considered at the time of trial and it is not proper stage to make any comment in respect of the above stated so- called contradiction. No doubt, injured of this case appears to have sustained simple injury but to constitute an offence under section 307 of the lPC, the nature of the injury is irrelevant. Accordingly, I do not find any error, illegality, irregularity in the impugned order which requires interference of this court under section 482 of the Cr. P.C and as such this petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, observations given in this order shall not prejudice the trial court at the time of pronouncement of the final verdict. Shahid ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)