IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5648 of 2010 1. RAMCHANDRA THAKUR S/O LATE KIDA THAKUR 2. ASHOK THAKUR 3. RAJESH THAKUR BOTH ARE SONS OF RAMCHANDRA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUSHI HARPUR RAMNI, P.S. KANTI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar,Advocate For the State : Mr. R.B.Roy ‘Raman’,A.P.P ------- 2. 17.2.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.B. Roy ‘Raman’, learned counsel for the State. The petitioners while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, has prayed for quashing of order dated 8.1.2010 whereby learned trial Judge has rejected his petition filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for their discharge. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring injury reports which are Annexure-3 series had submitted that as per injury reports, the doctor had found all the injuries as simple in nature. Taking advantage of these injury reports, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in any event in - 2 - this case Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable and as such learned trial court has incorrectly framed the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not contended that charges under other Sections i.e. Sections 341, 323, 447, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He also contended that during investigation, police did not collect any material regarding application under Section 307 I.P.C. in the present case. However, it appears that learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, had also taken cognizance for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and as such case was committed to the court of Sessions. Since at the time of cognizance, court had taken cognizance besides other section, under Section 307 I.P.C. also the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances, in any even, it is not a - 3 - case which warrants prosecution under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and submitted to quash the impugned order up to that extent. It appears that at the moment, his discharge petition has been rejected and charges have not been framed. It is up to the court below to weigh the evidence at the stage of framing of the charge under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. It is expected that while framing of the charges, the learned trial Judge will examine all the materials available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred a judgment of this Hon’ble Court reported in 2009(2) PLJR 77, Krishna Kumar @ Munna Lal Vrs. The State of Bihar. In that case, the informant had approached this Court challenging the correctness of the order of learned Sessions Judge whereby the learned trial court had held regarding non application under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and ordered to send back the case to the Magistrate of the Ist Class. The facts of the case in hand is not exactly - 4 - N.H./ like the case of Krishna Kumar (Supra). However, it is up to the trial court to examine the matter on the basis of materials brought on record by the prosecution. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with above observation and discussion. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)