IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40496 of 2006 BINAY KUMAR THAKUR & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 9 23.3.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioners seek quashing the order dated 16.9.2005 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr.Revision No.22 of 2001 whereby he has allowed the revision application setting aside the order dated 21.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in Trial No.51 of 2000 arising out of Gaighat P.S. Case No.72 of 1996. On fardbeyan of Opposite party no.2 dated 18.5.1996 Gaighat P.S. Case No.72 of 1996 was instituted under sections 147, 452, 341, 323, 354 and 379 of the Penal Code against eight persons. The specific allegation of assault is against accused Bhagya Narayan Thakur and Bindeshwari Singh. The allegation against other accused was of having assaulted the informant by legs when he fell down. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecution side and the accused persons are close agnates and there is land dispute between them and on account of enmity they have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The police after investigation submitted final form in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning other accused persons to face trial which was rejected by him by order dated 20.8.1998. Against the aforesaid order, the 2 Opposite party no.2 filed a Cr.Revision before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur and the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 9.8.1999 set aside the order dated 20.8.1998 and the matter was remanded to the trial court for passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. On remand, the matter was again taken up by the learned trial court and he had rejected the application of prosecution vide its order dated 21.12.2000. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Opposite party no.2 filed a Criminal Revision No.22 of 2001 before the Sessions Judge who by order dated 16.9.2005 set aside the order dated 21.12.2000 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is bad in law and despite valid service of notice no one appears on behalf of Opposite party no.2. It appears from the materials on record that the final report submitted by the police in favour of the petitioners was accepted without any protest petition on behalf of Opposite party no.2. The police in course of investigation found the allegation false against the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners figured in the last, of having assaulted the informant by legs as a result of which he fell down. An order under section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and on going through the materials on record, I find that the Sessions Judge has not given any cogent reasons for interfering with the order dated 21.12.2000 passed by the learned Magistrate. The impugned 3 KHAN order dated 16.9.2005 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr.Revision No.22 of 2001 is accordingly set aside. In the result, this application is allowed. (S.P.Singh,J)