IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.19029 of 2008 Sajjan Kumar Paswan, son of Fatinga Paswan, resident of Village-Shahpur Maricha, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur………………………………………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. …………………………………….Opposite Party- Ist Set. 2. Amarnath Prasad, son of Baidyanath Prasad. 3. Bhikhari Rai, son of Late Heera Rai. 4. Mahesh Rai, son of Late Heera Rai. 5. Hira Rai, son of Late Jagdeo Rai. 6. Mithilesh Rai, son of Jailal Rai. 7. Jailal Rai, son of Late Ramjee Rai. 8. Anandu Rai, son of Late Beni Rai. O.P. Nos.2 to 8 are residents of Village-Shahpur Maricha, P.S. Maniyari, District-Muzaffarpur. 9. Subodh Rai, son of Late Dalbeshwar Rai of village- Subudhiyanoor, P.S. Maniyari, District-Muzaffarpur. ……………………………………Opposite Party-2nd Set. …………………………………………..Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 3. 17.10.2011. Heard Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.N. Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. This application has been filed on behalf of the complainant-petitioner, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the order dated 21.8.2007 passed in Complaint Case No.394 of 2005, T.R.No.2477 of 2007 by the court of Sri A.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur, summoning the accused-opposite parties no.2 to 9, on inquiry, under Section 204 of the Code of 2 Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case against them under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Criminal Revision No. 211 of 2007, as preferred by the complainant-petitioner against the summoning order dated 21.8.2007. The sole grievance of the complainant-petitioner is that there was sufficient material for framing the charge under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atroctities) Act also against the opposite parties no.2 to 9, but the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, has not taken into consideration the same and dismissed the Criminal Revision No.211 of 2007 vide order dated 28.3.2008 upholding the order dated 21.8.2007 passed by the court of Sri A.K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No.394 of 2005, T.R. No.2477 of 2007. On going through the summoning order dated 21.8.2007, it appears that on perusal of solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses, the learned Magistrate has rightly arrived at the conclusion that 3 prima facie case under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made. In revisional order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also considered the same. As such, I find no illegality in the order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Criminal Revision No.211 of 2007 as well as in the order dated 21.8.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur, to interfere with the same in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)