IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.48278 OF 2008 1. RAJ GRIHI RAI, SON OF SATYA NARAYAN RAI 2. MANINDRA RAI, SON OF SATYA NARAYAN RAI 3. TARKESHWAR RAI, SON OF SATYA NARAYAN RAI 4. SHRAWAN RAI, SON OF RAJ GRIHI RAI 5. BHUSHAN RAI, SON OF MANINDRA RAI 6. SANJAY RAI, SON OF RAJ GRIHI RAI 7. RAJ KALI DEVI, WIFE OF RAJ GRIHI RAI 8. TETRA DEVI, WIFE OF TARKESHWAR RAI 9. BIBHA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF RAJ GRIHI RAI 10. USHA KUMARI, DAUGTHER OF TARKESHWAR RAI 11. MANI BHUSHAN RAI, SON OF TARKESHWAR RAI ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HANSAPIR, POLICE STATION MASRAK, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM PRIT RAI, SON OF BISHUNDEO RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HANSAPIR, POLICE STATION MASRAK, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA ********* 2 05/08/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 25.08.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 823 of 2006 by which the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Saran at Chapra has rejected the petition filed under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners submits that no case is made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that there is a case and counter case and the occurrence took place due to land dispute and as such, the Court below ought not to have 2 rejected the petition filed under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question whether Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out in this case would depend on the evidence that has come on record, the injury report, the weapon used and the manner of occurrence. This aspect of the matter could only be examined during the trial of the case. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Anand (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)