IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15591 of 2008 1. ASHOK RAI son of Sri Sunder Rai 2. Sadanand Thakur son of late Rambhaj Thakur 3. Anant Singh @ Anant Kr. Singh son of Laxman Singh 4.Mulki Rai son of Baldeo Rai All residents of village-Nemua, P.S.-Barahat Dist.-Banka …… …..Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Vijay Yadav son of late Kawali Yadav, resident of village-Nemua, P.S.-Barahat, Dist.-Banka. ….. …..Opp.Party. ----------- 2. 25.6.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.2.2008 passed by Sri N.N.Choudhar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Banka, in S.T. No.1114 of 2006/Tr. No.141 of 2008. By the said order the learned Judge has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for remitting back the case to the court of Magistrate for trial since, according to the defence, no offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while pressing this petition, submits that the injury report does not show that during the occurrence an attempt was made to kill any member of the informant side and, accordingly, it has been argued that the learned Judge without examining the materials on record has rejected the petition filed for remitting back the record to the court 2 of Magistrate for trial. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have examined the materials available on record including the impugned order. In this case first information report vide Banka (Barahat) P.S.Case No.275 of 2004 was registered for the offences under sections 341, 323 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides four petitioners, other accused persons were also named as accused in the first information report. From the first information report itself it appears that in the occurrence on the head of wife of the informant a Khanti blow was given and, thereafter, other accused persons also assaulted the family members of the informant with Lathi. The impugned order shows that the learned Judge, while hearing the petition filed under section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had examined the case record and observed that injury report shows that there were infliction and repetition of blows and, accordingly, the learned Judge was of the opinion that it was a case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners had argued that though first information report was registered for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code also during investigation police had not collected any material disclosing commission of offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and charge sheet was not submitted under section 307 of the Indian Penal 3 Code. However, the learned Magistrate, differing with the charge sheet submitted by the police, took cognizance of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case first information report was lodged in the year 2004 and after submission of the charge sheet the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code besides other sections of the Indian Penal Code and, thereafter, committal proceeding had taken place. It appears that at the stage of committal proceeding, no objection was raised for non-application of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of materials available on record, I am satisfied that, while rejecting the petition filed under section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judge has committed no error. It appears that the said petition was filed only with a view to delay the commencement of the trial. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and the petition stands rejected. Keeping in view the fact that the first information report was lodged long back in the year 2004, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously and conclude the same as early as possible. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)