IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.57237 of 2007 AJAY KANT TIWARY @ MUNNA TIWARY, SON OF DEO MUNI TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NARAON, POLICE STATION- BHABUA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. BIPIN BIHARI TIWARI @ PAPPU TIWARI, SON OF SUDHAKAR TIWARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NARAON, P.S.- BHABUA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 3.7.2009 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.7.2006 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 380 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. A First Information Report was instituted in which it is alleged that Guddu Tiwary was running away from his house carrying a trunk on his head. It is alleged against Ajay Kant Tiwary that he opened fire which hit the informant on his left leg. On investigation of the case the Investigating Officer found that the case was not true and that the informant had lodged this case because the petitioner was a witness in a Sessions Trial pending against the informant. The Investigating Officer also came to the conclusion that the injury of the informant was self inflicted and simple in nature. This application has proceeded on the basis of a protest petition filed on behalf of the informant and cognizance has been taken 2 thereafter. Learned counsel submits that this case is a fine example of a case being instituted due to revenge and because of malafide. It is also submitted that the injury report would indicate that no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and it is also not clear that the injury was a gun shot injury. It is further submitted that on investigation of the case the Investigating Officer had recommended for institution of the case under Sections 182 and 211. The facts pointed out by the petitioner i.e. the documents relating to the earlier case the finding of the Investigating Officer and the finding of the Medical Officer should be considered by the Court at the time of framing of the charges and after considering whether any offence is made out under Section 307 or not the Court below shall pass appropriate orders relating to fact whether the charges are true or not. This Court cannot pass an order at this stage on this aspect of the matter. This quashing application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)