IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1537 of 2008 Laxmi Narayan Sah, S/o Kunja Lal Sah, R/o Mohalla- Ruhelaganj, P.S. Vishawa Vidyalaya, Dist. Darbhanga. --Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sumit Kumar, S/o Sri Bhola Prasad Sah, R/o Mohalla- Ratnopatti (Darbhanga), P.S. Nagar, Dist. Darbhanga. -- Opp.Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Jaipuriar, Advocate. For the O.Ps. : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 02 16.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and Opposite parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned revisional Court ( Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Darbhanga) in Cr. Rev. no. 382 of 2007 ( Sumit Kumar vs. State of Bihar & ors.). By the aforesaid order the revisional Court, on a consideration of the matter, has interfered with and set aside the order dated 13.08.2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Darbhanga in Tr. No. 790 of 2007 by which he had dismissed the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟). The complainant/opposite party no.2 lodged a complaint in the Court on 04.02.2004, alleging therein that as he was going to catch a bus he was intercepted by the accused persons who were standing by the side of the road from before and at the pistol point he was relieved of his bag which contained heavy amount. It is further allegation that they took control of him 2 at gun point and were trying to take him away but the complainant/informant any how managed to escape. On the direction of the Court, an F.I.R. was lodged and the matter was investigated. It may be stated herein that the complaint/ F.I.R. was lodged under diverse Sections including Sections 394,384, 364A and 120B of the Penal Code. The police, on conclusion of investigation, submitted charge sheet only under Sections 143, 341,323 and 379/34 of the Penal Code. The trial was taken up in which almost all the charge sheet witnesses were examined. It may be noted here that complainant/opposite party no.2 had already filed a protest petition in the Court which was allowed to be kept on record. An application was filed on behalf of the prosecution(petitioner) stating therein that the witnesses so far examined in this case have consistently supported the prosecution case spelt out in the complaint that gave rise to F.I.R.. A bare perusal of the evidence would show that this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 323 of the Code ought to commit the case to the Court of session for trial. It is again to be recorded herein that learned Magistrate on the basis of the charge sheet taken up the trial treating it to be a summons triable case. Learned Magistrate by a proceeding dated 13.08.2007 rejected the aforesaid application. Petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred the aforesaid Cr. Rev. no. 382 of 2007 which was considered and disposed of by the learned revisional Court. Learned revisional Court, on a consideration of the entire materials 3 on record including the evidence so far adduced on behalf of the prosecution concluded as under in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the order impugned:- “6. From the perusal of the lower Court record it appears that the prosecution has produced altogether 6 witnesses on the point of fact before the learned Court below and they are P.W.1 Dev Narayan Sah, P.W.2 Rakesh Paswan, P.W.3 Md. Sarfaraz Alam, P.W.4 Pramod Jha, P.W.5 Sudhir Kumar Sah and P.W.6 Sumit Kumar, out of these 6 witnesses only P.W.4 Pramod Jha has not supported the prosecution case. P.W.7 Nokhe Lal Prasad is the I.O. 7. From the perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses, I found that they have supported the fact regarding kidnapping by the accused. From the perusal of the evidence of witnesses it also appears that there are substance that robbery was committed or attempted and 5 or more persons committed or attempted to commit robbery. It also appears that evidence has come that the accused persons wanted to kidnap the informant for ransom.” Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present application was filed at a very belated stage and as such the order passed by learned Magistrate ought not have been interfered by learned revisional Court. He relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 911 (Thakur Ram & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar paragraph no. 9). It appears that the fact of the case cited by the learned Court were entirely different and distinct. The prosecution had, on few earlier occasions, filed such application which was/were rejected by the Court below. In the case at hand the prosecution filed an application promptly after examination of all relevant witnesses praying therein to commit the case to the Court of sessions for trial in view of their evidence 4 supporting the case. After going through the F.I.R., the two impugned orders passed by learned Courts below, I am satisfied that any interference with the order shall only subvert the cause of justice. The application has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)