JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Opposite Party No. 2 and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The First Information Report reveals that after the 2005 Election, the informant who was a member of the R. J. D. party was sitting in his Office at 08:30 AM when ten accused persons are said to have entered the Office of the informant and all of them dragged the informant out of the Office and this petitioner is said to have abused the informant and thereafter all the named accused persons had assaulted him with fists & slaps including the butt of the rifle, as a result of which the informant fainted and he was thrown on the road treating him to be a dead person. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is absolutely false and it is not a fit case in which charges should be framed against the petitioner in view of the fact that the entire allegation appears to be untrue. It is submitted that the specific case of the informant is that he was left on the road treating him to be dead. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 08:30 AM and at 09:15 AM, a written report in the hand of the injured/informant was handed over to the Police. On the same day i.e. on 25.10.2005, the date of occurrence, the First Information Report was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar. These facts according to the petitioner demonstrate the falsity of the allegations and also indicate that the case has been filed due to political reasons. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that it is highly suspicious that a person who is assaulted in the manner alleged in the First Information Report could have given a written report within 15 minutes in the Police Station. Nevertheless, it appears that injury report is on the record which says that infact the informant was assaulted. There are eleven injuries on his body out of which ten are simple in nature. It is said that injury no. 11 indicates that there was fracture of 5th and 6th ribs. 5. Nevertheless, it appears that injury report is on the record which says that infact the informant was assaulted. There are eleven injuries on his body out of which ten are simple in nature. It is said that injury no. 11 indicates that there was fracture of 5th and 6th ribs. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if the entire allegations are considered to be correct, the question is whether the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out in the case of this nature. 6. While examining whether Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused persons, the Court has to see the nature of the injuries, the manner in which the occurrence has taken place and the intention of the parties and the weapon used. 7. In the present case, it appears that ten persons assaulted the informant. Some of them were carrying rifles. The manner of assault was by fists and slaps and it is also said that the butt of the rifle was used. The allegations against all the persons are omnibus in nature and the intention of the parties can be gathered by the fact that the cause of action was politically motivated as stated in the First Information Report. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it does not make sense that the occurrence should happen after the elections. It is false case. The medical report and the Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna report indicates that the injured was not present in the hospital. The intention can also be gathered by the fact that the weapons used and the manner in which the assault is inflicted. In the present case, it is submitted that even though some of the accused were carrying rifles, they did not use them which would indicate that the intention was not to kill the informant, rather it was to scare or teach him a lesson that he should not oppose the petitioner and his candidate in future. 8. in the circumstances, learned Counsel submits that if these facts are taken into consideration, at most the offence can be made out against the petitioner is under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. 8. in the circumstances, learned Counsel submits that if these facts are taken into consideration, at most the offence can be made out against the petitioner is under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. An argument was raised on behalf of the Opposite Party that the application ought to have been filed under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The purpose of Sections 228 and 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that the Court should be satisfied that the accusation made against the accused is not frivolous and there must be some material in proceeding against him. At the stage of 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court cannot evaluate the material and documents but must examine them with a view to finding out the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. 10. In the result, I remand the matter back for reconsideration within a period of three months on receipt of the order and after hearing the parties, The order dated 18.06.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. Ill, Buxar is hereby quashed. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above.