Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 489 (PAT)

Md. Sahabuddin v. State of Bihar

2012-03-21

RAKESH KUMAR

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar No.1, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ram Chandra Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of part of the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Purnea in Cr. Revision No.36 of 2009. The petitioners, after the order of cognizance dated 3.12.2008, preferred revision for setting aside the order of cognizance. The learned Magistrate, in Complaint Case No.2401 of 2008, Trial No.2779 of 2009, after conducting enquiry, had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The revisional court did not interfere with the order of cognizance, but he clarified that incorrectly instead of summoning the accused persons under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused persons were summoned for offence under Sections 323 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned revisional court observed that in view of the facts and evidences, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was applicable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that revisional court had committed gross error by observing for application of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that evidence on record primarily does not disclose commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners are not disputing or alleging any error in the order of cognizance for offence under Sections 323 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Be that as it may, which section is required to be applied, is dependent on the basis of evidence brought on record. Even though the revisional court has passed the order observing for application of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, if there is no evidence or material on record to prima facie disclosing commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, there is no possibility for framing of charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. At the moment, the court is of the opinion that the petitioners may not be allowed to question the order of revisional court on this very point. This point is left open to be considered at appropriate stage i.e. at the stage of charge. I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order. 6. At the moment, the court is of the opinion that the petitioners may not be allowed to question the order of revisional court on this very point. This point is left open to be considered at appropriate stage i.e. at the stage of charge. I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order. It is made clear that at the time of charge, the learned court below, after going through the material on record, may pass appropriate order. 7. The petition stands disposed of.