IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12891 of 2008 RAM KISHORE SINGH, Son of Late Baidhanath Singh, resident of Village-Chhatwara, P.S. Mahua, District-Vaishali -- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 21-06-2010 When the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State is present. In this case, a petition was filed on behalf of the informant vide I.A.No.839 of 2008 for being impleaded as Opp.Party in the present case. Sri Ramesh Kumar Chaudhary appears on behalf of the Intervenor. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , has prayed for quashing of the order dated 1.3.2008 passed in S.Tr.No.445 of 2006( Arising out of Mahua P.S. Case No.484 of 2004) by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.1, Vaishali at Hajipur . By the said order, the learned court has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 228 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to remit back the records to the Court of the learned Magistrate. It was pleaded that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and other offences are triable by the First Class Magistrate. On perusal of the record as well as the impugned order, it appears that in the present case, F.I.R. vide Mahua P.S. Case No.484 of 2004 was registered in the month of November,2004 for the offences 2 under Sections 147,148, 149,323, 324,307, 504 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. F.I.R. was lodged against this petitioner and other accused persons. After investigation in the case first chargesheet was submitted against one accused person and after commitment, it was numbered as Sessions Trial No.236 of 2005. Subsequently, supplementary chargesheet was submitted against other seven accused persons and after commitment it was numbered as Sessions Trial No.445 of 2005. Since two sessions Trials were out of the same F.I.R., both the trials were ordered to be proceeded jointly. On behalf of this petitioner, a petition was filed under Section 228 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for remitting back the records to the court of the learned Magistrate. It was argued that no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and, as such, the case is triable by the learned Magistrate. From the impugned order, it appears that other accused persons had filed a petition for their discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which too was rejected. It further appears from the impugned order that there is material on record to show that this petitioner gave ‘Farsa’ blow on the head of the informant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petition, which was filed under Section 228A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed only with a view to delay commencement of the trial and similarly after rejection of the petition, the present petition was filed before this Court without any merit. I do not find any substance in the present petition and the petition stands 3 rejected. Keeping in view the fact that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2004, it is desirable to direct the trial court to proceed with the case expeditiously and conclude the same without any further delay. Let this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )