IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29370 of 2009 Ashok Paswan, S/O-Ram Prasad Paswan, resident of Village-Shital Bigha, P.S.-Daudnagar, District-Aurangabad ………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ramdeo Singh, S/O-Late Balgovind Singh 3. Jainath Singh, S/O-Late Ramdevan Singh Both resident of village-Shital Bigha, P.S.-Daudnagar, District-Aurangabad 4. Girija Bhushan Singh, S/O-Late Rameshwar Singh 5. Pankaj Kumar @ Judge, S/O-Girija Bhushan Singh Both resident of Village-Pilchi, P.S.-Daudnagar, District-Aurnagabad ……….Opposite Parties. ----------- 02 13.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 03.07.2009 and 11.12.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2008/87 of 2009 and Sri M.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aurangabad in Complaint Case No. 985 of 2007/Trial No. 60 of 2008, respectively. It is gathered from the record that petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 985 of 2007 against opposite parties no. 2 to 5 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, Bihar and after enquiry, Sri M.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aurangabad passed impugned order dated 11.12.2008 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 427, 447 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid cognizance order, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2008/87 of 2009 which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Aurangabad vide impugned order dated 03.07.2009 giving an opportunity to petitioner 2 to raise his points at the time of framing of the charge. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned orders on the ground that petitioner has specifically averred in complaint petition that a dead she buffalo got buried in the field of the petitioner by opposite parties no. 2 to 5 with intent to grab his land and when he objected the aforesaid act of the opposite parties no. 2 to 5, they abused and also humiliated him by calling his caste name and furthermore, it is contended by him that in course of enquiry almost all the witnesses have supported the aforesaid fact but neither learned Judicial Magistrate nor learned Additional Sessions Judge gave any heed towards the aforesaid fact and passed illegal and erroneous orders. In my view, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed in his order dated 03.07.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2008/87 of 2009 that the petitioner may raise all the aforesaid points before the lower court at the time of framing of the charge. It is an admitted position that even if, the charge is framed against any person, the charge can be altered or amended at any stage of the trial before pronouncement of the judgment. Therefore, in my view, it is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise its power vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid circumstances, this petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself. However, it is made clear that petitioner may raise the above stated points at the time of framing of the charge, if it has not 3 been framed as yet before the trial court as observed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in order dated 03.07.2009 passed in Criminal Revision No. 158 of 2008/87 of 2009. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)