IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1077 of 2009 Krishna Singh, son of Ganga Singh, resident of village-Bari- Khagaul, P.S.-Khagaul, District- Patna. …..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Jagdish Kumar, son of Late Ganga Ram. 3. Jagat Kumar, son of Late Ganga Ram 4. Manish Kumar, son of Jagat Kumar 5. Rahul Kumar, son of Jagdish Kumar (All residents of village-Bari Khagaul, P.S.- Khagaul, District- Patna) …….Opp.Parties 04. 09.08.2011 The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 11.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, XI, Patna in S.Tr.No.63/09 by which no material has been found for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and the case has been found triable by the Magistrate and accordingly, it has been remitted to the court of learned A.C.J.M, Danapur for trial. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. Anuj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of the petitioner’s written report, Khagual P.S. Case No.43/08 was instituted for the 2 offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 504/34 of the I.P.C. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. There is sufficient material to show that the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. He has also submitted that the petitioner has received grievous injury as shown in the injury report of the doctor. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that they filed a petition under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. to remit the case before the learned Magistrate as there is no ingredient for framing of charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. He has also submitted that there is a case and counter case for the same offence and the accused-opposite party no.3 Jagat Kumar has given a written information to the Khagaul Police station and on the basis of the written report Khagaul P.S. Case No.44/08 has been instituted against the informant of the present case and others for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379 and 504/34 of the I.P.C. As such, the petition filed by the accused under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and no interference is required. He has further submitted that the case lodged by the 3 opposite party is pending for trial in the court of learned A.C.J.M, Danapur and it is also settled principle of law that the case and counter case should be heard by the same court. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the injury report and other material and has not found the intention of the accused to kill the petitioner and has found that there is no material on the record to show that the accused have committed offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, this petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)