IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13642 of 2009 1.AZAHAR ANSARI 2.AKHTAR ANSARI 3.MAZHAR ANSARI 4.ATAHAR ANSARI All Sons of Ashique Ansari 5.SHAHADAT ANSARI 6.SADAKAT ANSARI 7.SAKIL ANSARI 8.WAKIL ANSARI All Sons of Azhar Ansari 9.REHANA KHATOON, D/O Azhar Ansari 10.ANJUMAN KHATOON, D/O Akhtar Ansari 11.RAJIA BEGUM, W/O Akhtar Ansari 12.MAHTAB ANSARI, S/O Unus Ansari All Resident of Village Nekara, P.S. Agrer, District Rohtas. ……….Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ASLAM ANSARI, S/O Israil Ansari, Resident of Village Nekara, P.S. Agrer, District Rohtas. ………..Opposite Parties For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, A.P.P. 02/- 11-10-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra (No. 2), learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 15.10.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram passed in Sasaram (Agrer) P.S. Case No. 32 of 2008 taking cognizance for other offences including Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also quashing of order dated 02.03.2009 passed by - 2 - learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Criminal Revision No. 286 of 2008 preferred against order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram aforementioned, but upholding the same by dismissing the revision. 3. Undisputedly, Sasaram (Agrer) P.S. Case No. 32 of 2008 was instituted on 20.01.2008 on the fardbeyan of opposite party, Aslam Ansari for the offences under Sections 447, 341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offences under which the case was instituted, accordingly, on perusal of charge-sheet and other relevant papers Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance. The petitioners have grievance only against order taking cognizance for the offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for which as submitted Criminal Revision No. 286 of 2008 was preferred which has been dismissed. Main grievance against revisional order as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Revisional Court without any jurisdiction considered the report of doctor at B.H.U., Varanasi with respect to one of the injured Jarina Khatoon, the said report was not subject matter of investigation nor the injured was ever referred to B.H.U., Varanasi for treatment, where as the doctor examining her at Sasaram has opined the injury sustained by her simple in nature, even after x- ray examination. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that even local doctor found some blood clotting at her forehead and she was as evident from Annexure-4, prescription of - 3 - Sir Sundarlal Chikitsalaya, Kashi, she was referred there and the doctor found injury on forehead with some fracture of ribs etc. 4. It is undisputed that case was instituted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, charge-sheet was also submitted for said offence, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate was competent to do so. No doubt, as it appears the photocopy of injuries reports of Jarina Khatoon issued by B.H.U., Varanasi was filed before the Revisional Court by learned counsel for the opposite party, who apart from other materials considered the same while dismissing the revision. 5. It is undisputed that case has already been committed to the court of Sessions for trial where hearing on the point of charge is yet to be done. The trial court may thoroughly examine the case diary and other materials collected during investigation and produced before it by prosecution and pass appropriate order in accordance with law on the point whether it is a fit case for trial before the Sessions Court or matter may be remitted to the court below (Magistrate) for trial of the case, if some minor offences excluding offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted. With the above observation this application stands disposed of. Praveen (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)