IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23794 of 2007 1. GOPAL RAM @ GOPAL PRASAD 2. GILANI RAM @ GIRANI RAM @ GIRANI PRASAD 3. SUBHASH RAM @ SUBASH PRASAD ALL SONS OF LATE LAKHAN RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BIGHA JAMALPUR, P.S. AND DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MEENA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI NAGINA SINGH, VILLAGE- CHANDANI CHOWK, P.S.- SHEIKHPURA, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioners :- Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Ravi Ranjan I, Advocate Mr. Malay Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Parties:- Mr. Kalika Nandan, Advocate Mr. Brajnandan Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. ----------- 3 3.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sheikhpura dated 19.4.2006 and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vth, Sheikhpura dated 27.2.2007. The facts of the case are that there was an exchange of hot words and also some ‘Marpit’. It was also alleged that certain articles were stolen in that occurrence from the house of the informant. The police investigated the case and found that the witnesses in fact did not make any statement with respect to theft of 2 articles from the house of the informant. The trial of this case began and evidence started. It appears that 4 witnesses were examined and the last witness was examined on 30.1.2004. Thereafter the Opposite Party filed a petition that he should be permitted to add 6 other witnesses not named in the charge sheet and they were summoned to give evidence in the trial. With great difficulty 3 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and the last of them was examined on 28.10.2004. After a delay a petition was filed by the informant under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying therein that sufficient materials have come on record to indicate that offences under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the petitioners, and that the charge should be framed under Section 380 and the petitioner should be asked to remain present in Court for framing of the charge. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the occurrence has taken place on 11.11.2000 and after 5 years the informant has taken an objection and has made this prayer to add Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code as one 3 of the charges against the petitioners. It is also submitted that this petition has been filed in order to delay the entire trial and because there is not enough material to otherwise convict the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant on the other hand submits that the charge can be can be altered or framed at any stage of the case and the Court below has found sufficient material to indicate that offences under Section 380 are made out in this case. Be that as it may, petitioners are directed to appear for the purpose of framing of charge under Section 380, however direction is given to the Trial Court to frame charges immediately on receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter to summon the witnesses and to conclude the trial within a period of 4 months as the question is now very limited and the witnesses have only to be cross-examined on the point of charge under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. This quashing application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)