ORDER : Sanjay Prasad, J. This Criminal Revision Application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, namely Mahavir Mahto, Mahendra Mahto and Rajesh Mandal @ Rajesh Prasad, challenging the order dated 08.05.2019 passed in S.T. No. 328 of 2018, by Shri Kaushal Kishore Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge petition filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Initially five petitioners had filed this Criminal Revision Application. Later on, Original Petitioner No. 3, namely Nand Kishore Mahto @ Nand Kishore Prasad and Original Petitioner No. 5, namely Chotu Prasad had withdrawn the revision applications on their behalf on 16.02.2023. The name of Original Petitioner No. 3 and Original Petitioner No. 5 had been deleted on 22.02.2023 as the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to delete their names on 16.02.2023. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant had gone to attend the Panchayati on 05.6.2010 at Village Karwa and he along with his brother Arjun Sao and one Ful Chand Sao and nephew Santosh Kumar had attended the Panchayati, however, due to a conspiracy the accused Saman Thakur, Mukhiya Gopal Prasad, Ramchandra Prasad, Mahabir Mahto, i.e. Petitioner No. 1, Rajesh Mandal, i.e. Petitioner No. 3, Mahendra Mahto, i.e. Petitioner No. 2 and one Chait Lal Mahto and One Chotu Prasad, who were present earlier, got them engaged in talks and assaulted them by deadly weapons due to which his brother sustained head injury and his leg was broken. It is also alleged that the informant was assaulted by means of Iron Rod and Tangi by one Saman Thakur and Ramchander (against whom Final Form were submitted) and Rajesh Mandal, i.e. Petitioner No. 3. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the Informant. 5. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the police, after investigation, has not found any material against three persons namely Samman Thakur, Gopal Prasad and Rajendra Prasad, hence final form was submitted against them although there were specific allegations against them also for assaulting the Informant and other injured persons. It is submitted that the police, after investigation, has not found any material against three persons namely Samman Thakur, Gopal Prasad and Rajendra Prasad, hence final form was submitted against them although there were specific allegations against them also for assaulting the Informant and other injured persons. It is submitted that even as per F.I.R. there is no specific allegation against these accused persons for committing assault against the Informant and the specific allegation of assault by iron rod and axe upon the informant was against Sammon Thakur, Ramchandra Mahto and only one of the petitioners Rajesh Mandal, i.e. the Petitioner No. 4. It is submitted that the allegations are vague and general in nature and there was no intention whatsoever to kill the informant or his family members as the petitioner were having sufficient opportunity to kill the informant side. It is submitted that the injuries were not found on the vital part of the body of the informant and others, which is evident from the injury reports. It is submitted that there is no allegation of repetition of using the deadly weapons by the accused persons. It is submitted that in the above facts, no offence Under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners and there was no material for framing charge under Section 307 I.P.C. against the petitioners. It is submitted that in course of investigation sufficient materials were not collected as against the petitioners on the basis of which charges could have been framed. It is submitted that no specific overt act has been assigned as against the petitioners for assaulting the Informant & injured persons. It is submitted that save and except the interested witnesses of the informant being police personnel, none of the independent witnesses have stated anything against these petitioners. It is submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioners in the F.I.R. are false and concocted and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, this Criminal Revision No. 983 of 2019 may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision No. 983 of 2019 may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and there is direct allegations against all the petitioners for assaulting the informant and his brother and other injured and due to this assault, the brother of the informant had sustained head injury, which was serious in nature. It is submitted that the witnesses, namely Kartik Prasad, Basudeo Mahto and Tahal Mahto, whose statements have been recorded, at Paragraph 11, 12 and 13 of the case diary, have fully supported the case against the petitioners. It is submitted that the injured persons were firstly treated at Health Centre, Barkattha, Hazaribagh and subsequently, they were treated in a Hospital in Kharagpur, West Bengal. It is submitted that this is a case of free fight and the informant and his brother had sustained serious injuries and hence, this criminal revision may be dismissed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the submissions of the learned A.P.P., has further submitted that this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit. It is further submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and there is direct allegation against them for assaulting the informant and his family members by Iron Rod and Tangi which caused cut injury on the head of the brother of the informant and even the leg of the brother of the informant was fractured. Even head injuries were found on the person of other injured person, i.e. Ful Chand Sao and another injured Arjun Sao had sustained lacerated injury on his body and another injured Santosh Kumar sustained injury on his face and upper nose. It is submitted that injured persons were not only treated at Community Health Centre in Barkattha, Hazaribagh, but they are also treated at a hospital in Kharagpur (West Bengal). It is submitted that injured persons were not only treated at Community Health Centre in Barkattha, Hazaribagh, but they are also treated at a hospital in Kharagpur (West Bengal). It is submitted that the witnesses, namely Basudeo Sao, injured witness Fulchand Sao, injured witness Santosh Kumar, Rohan Rana, Kartik Prasad, Basudeo Mahto and Tahal Mahto, whose statements have been recorded, mentioned at Para 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 of the case diary respectively, have fully supported the prosecution case and assault on the informant and his brother and other the injured persons. It is submitted that Paragraph 19, 20 and 21 respectively are the injury reports of injured Arjun Sao, Fulchand Sao and Santosh Kumar respectively, which clearly shows that the Informant side had sustained injuries. 8. Learned counsel for the informant, in support of his submission, has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Anjani Kumar Chaudhary Vrs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 12 SCC 286 , (2) Vineet Mahajan Vrs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2017 14 SCC 803 It is submitted that at the stage of framing of charges, meticulous examination of statement of prosecution witnesses is not required to be seen. This Criminal Revision 983 of 2019 is devoid of merit and may be dismissed. 9. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submissions of both the sides. 10. It appears from the F.I.R. that eight accused persons, including the Petitioners, namely Mahabir Mahto, Mahender Mahto and Rajesh Mandal @ Rajesh Prasad and other persons by making unlawful assembly and having been armed with deadly weapons, had assaulted the informant, his brother and other injured persons and allegations against them are in general and omnibus manner due to which the brother of the Informant had sustained cut injury on his head and his leg was fractured. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that one Saman Thakur and one Ramchander Mahto and one Rajesh Mandal (i.e. the Petitioner No.3) had assaulted the informant. 11. It appears that Saman Thakur and Ramchander Mahto was not sent up for trial and police had filed final form against them. 12. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that one Saman Thakur and one Ramchander Mahto and one Rajesh Mandal (i.e. the Petitioner No.3) had assaulted the informant. 11. It appears that Saman Thakur and Ramchander Mahto was not sent up for trial and police had filed final form against them. 12. So far as the injury reports are concerned, Para 19 in the injury report of the injury of one Arjun Sao, who is the brother of the informant and it reveals that one wound injury and swelling on right joint was found, which were caused by hard and blunt substance and on the point of injury opinion was reserved and the patient was sent to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh. Paragraph 20 is the injury report of Fulchand Sao and the Doctor has found wound injury on his both parietal bone caused by hard and blunt substance and opinion was reserved on the nature of injury and the patient was referred to Sadar Hospital Para 21 is the injury report of injured Santosh Kumar and the doctor had found the injuries on his person caused by hard and blunt substance. 13. From perusal of subsequent statement of the informant recorded at Paragraph 3, it would appear that he has stated the same facts as has been stated in the F.I.R. 14. It also appears from the statements of injured witnesses, namely Fulchand Sao, Santosh Kumar, at Paragraph 5 and 6 of the case diary, that a Panchayati was being convened with regard to 19 decimal of land at the Campus of the Shiv Temple and in which they along with their brother Arjun Sao, nephew Santosh Kumar had attended and where other persons namely Gopal Prasad, Samman Thakur, the old owner of the land-Roshan Rana, Ramchandra Prasad, Mahabir Mahto, i.e. Petitioner No. 1, Rajesh Mandal, i.e. Petitioner No.3, Nandkishore Mahto, Mahender Mahto, i.e. Petitioner No.2 and Choti Prasad started altercation and they were having hot exchange of words and in the meantime, they were attacked by bricks and stones and due to which they became seriously injured. However, they stated that the injured Arjun Sao is not in a position to give his own statement. 15. However, they stated that the injured Arjun Sao is not in a position to give his own statement. 15. Paragraph 10 is the statement of one Rohan Rana, who is the owner of land and has stated that he had sold his share of land to Mahabir Mahto, i.e. Petitioner No. 1, but as he is an illiterate person and hence he is not aware as to how much land has been executed. He also stated that his elder brother and one Barhan Rana had executed land to Basudeo Sao, i.e. the informant. Thereafter, an altercation had taken place with regard to the land in question and there were assault and hence, he left the place. Para 11, 12 and 13 are the statements of independent witnesses, namely Kartik Prasad, Basudeo Mahto and Tahal Mahto who had stated that Mahabir Prasad, i.e. Petitioner No. 1 had purchased land from the seller Rohan Rana and five decimal land is in dispute and in order to solve the dispute, a Panchayati was being convened by the Mukhiya Gopal Prasad, Social Worker-Kammam Thakur, Teacher Ram Chandra Prasad with 15-20 persons and when the Panchayati was going on, then in the meantime Arjun Sao, i.e. injured, Basudeo, i.e. the informant and Fulchand Sao, i.e. another injured, Jitender Kumar s/o Arjun Sao and Santosh Kumar, s/o Fulchand Sao arrived there and claimed 19 decimal of land over the land of Khata No. 48 Plot No. 3846/3847. Then Mahabir Mahto, i.e. Petitioner No. 1 and others claimed the said land to be their own and then a heated altercation took place and bricks and stones were hurled upon and due to which persons of both sides became seriously injured. They also disclosed that Sammon Thakur, Gopal Prasad and Ramchandra Prasad were not involved in the assault. 16. Para 26 is the supervision note of the Inspector of Police who has stated the same facts as stated by the witnesses, namely Kartik Prasad, Basudeo Mahto and Tahal Mahto at Para 11, 12 and 13, who has stated that the disputed land was purchased by Mahabir Prasad in the year 1991 and who had given certain direction to the I.O. of this case. Para 46, 47 and 48 are the statement of another set of independent witnesses, namely Shambhu Prasad, Tejo Mahto and Manoj Kumar Prasad respectively, who have stated about the altercation between both the sides and has stated that the informant side is trying to implicate Saman Thakur, Ramchander Prasad and Mukhiya Gopal Prasad and both sides have sustained injuries, which was recorded on 10.08.2016. 17. It also appears that the Chargesheet was submitted in this case on 31.03. 2017 for the offences under Sections 341/323/324/325/307/34 I.P.C. on 31.3.2017, but it was seen by the learned Court below on 13.06.2017. Even at the time of submission of chargesheet the supplementary injury report could not be obtained by the I.O. 18. It reveals from Para 63 written on 10.01.2017 of the case diary and Para 71 written on 20.02.2017 of the case diary that the I.O. was informed at Sadar Hospital that the injury reports of the injured persons have not been prepared. Even on the date of submission of chargesheet on 31.03.2017, the supplementary injury report was not available with the Investigating Officer. 19. It also appears that the informant and injured persons have not been provided with the injury report of the injured persons, namely Arjun Sao and Fulchand Sao, who are said to have sustained serious injuries or the grievous injury. 20. From perusal of the injury reports mentioned at Paragraph 19 and 20, it would appear that the Doctor had not opined about the nature of injury and opinion was reserved on the nature of injury as to whether it was grievous or simple. Neither the Informant nor the I.O. had obtained the X-Ray report of the alleged fracture of the left leg of the brother of the informant, i.e. the Arjun Sao, who is said to have sustained cut injury on the head and his leg was said to be fractured. 21. During course of argument, learned counsel for the Informant has tried to show certain photographs of injuries of the injured persons, but the same were not on the record of this case at the time of submission of chargesheet. 22. 21. During course of argument, learned counsel for the Informant has tried to show certain photographs of injuries of the injured persons, but the same were not on the record of this case at the time of submission of chargesheet. 22. It would further appear that in absence of any injury report as to whether the injury was grievous or dangerous to life, chargesheet was submitted under Section 307 I.P.C. by the Police and the case had been committed to the Court of Sessions and where the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 23. It also appears that even one Radha Devi, wife of Mahabir Mahto, i.e. the Petitioner No. 1 has lodged F.I.R. on 05.6.2016 against the informant Basudeo Shah and his injured brothers and nephews, namely Arjun Sao, Fulchand Sao, Jitender Kumar and Santosh Kumar under Sections 341/ 323/ 354/ 504/ 506/ 379/ 34 of the I.P.C. 24. It also appears that both the sides had sustained injuries and there were brick batting and stones were pelted from both the sides. 25. It also appears that final opinion on the injury report of Arjun Sao and Fulchand Sao have not been brought on record, however, from the injury report of injured witness Santosh Kumar, contained in Paragraph 21 of the Case Diary, it transpires that his injuries are simple in nature. 26. Even the Informant-O.P. No. 2 has filed counter affidavit on 26.02.2020, but neither the supplementary injury report has been brought on record nor any injury report has been brought on record by the State through the informant of this case. Although the counsel for the informant has vehemently and strenuously argued that at the stage of considering the discharge petition, evaluation of statement of prosecution witnesses cannot be made and meticulous examination of the statement of witnesses should not be made and otherwise this will amount to holding a mini trial. 27. However, this Court finds that there is no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out at this stage as the injury report of the injured persons were reserved. 28. In the case of Anjani Kumar Chaudhary Vrs. 27. However, this Court finds that there is no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out at this stage as the injury report of the injured persons were reserved. 28. In the case of Anjani Kumar Chaudhary Vrs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 12 SCC 286 , it would appear that in the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had set aside the order of the High Court and Sessions Court, who had held that offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out. From perusal of the said judgment, it would appear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court after noticing the injuries, which were found on the right temporal region of the scalp as well as on the right side of occipital region of the scalp and left side of occipital region of the scalp of the appellant, who was a lawyer and was sitting at his residence and the accused persons had entered into his house and demanded expenses of Rs.1,000/- and the injured had given only Rs.200/- due to which dispute arose and he was dragged out of his house after giving several blows. This shows that the accused persons had deliberately assaulted the lawyer at his residence. However, in the instant case the Panchayati was being convened in an open space in presence of both sides and it has come on record that bricks and stones were hurled by both the sides and both sides had sustained injuries. Thus, the above judgment reported in 2014 (12) SCC 286 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 29. It has been held in the case of Vineet Mahajan Vrs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2017 (14) SCC 803 , at Para 11 as follows:- “11. Further the question as to whether there was an intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case which has to be attributed on evidence by the trial court. We would like to reproduce paras 15 and 16 of the judgment incorporating the aforesaid principles: “15. We would like to reproduce paras 15 and 16 of the judgment incorporating the aforesaid principles: “15. The relative portion of the statement of FIR witness Gautam Chaudhary reads as follows: ‘… Soon after, Sunil Sahni along with Ramesh Sahni, Deepak Sahni, Mohan Sahni and Buchchu Sahni after variously armed with farsa, talwar, iron rod, lathi, paipa (small size of lathi) came there and Sunil Sahni soon after his arrival told “aaj wakilwa ko sabak sikha dena hai” (today we have to teach a lesson to the advocate) “sala paisa nahi diya hai” stating this he having armed with farsa, gave farsa-blow with intent to kill him over his head to which the informant wanted to save him but the said farsa-blow inflicted near his right ear and Mohan Sahni gave talwar-blow over the throat of the informant which resulted in injury over his throat and the informant fell down and even then Deepak Sahni having iron rod in his hand assaulted the informant with iron rod which inflicted injury over the left wrist of the informant and the other accused persons Ramesh Sahni, Dinesh Sahni and Shunbhu Sahni assaulted with lathi, feet, slaps in the meantime. Asbari Sahni, Laxmi Sahni, Santosh Sahni, Jagdish Sahni and four to five unknown persons came there and abused the informant with intent to provoke breach of the peace and they started to teach lessons to the advocate who is partaking much.’ 16. The statements of the witnesses Baiju and Manoj Chaudhary are also in the same lines. What is discernible from the above statements is that the first accused and others, while committing the alleged offence, had exhorted that they would kill the appellant if the money was not paid. Open announcement by the accused and others that the appellant would not be alive to practise in the High Court, would prima facie indicate that the intention of the accused was, what he had spoken, followed by the infliction of injuries. Further, when several persons attack an unarmed person with deadly weapons, it is reasonable to presume that they had knowledge or intention that such an attack would result in death. Further, when several persons attack an unarmed person with deadly weapons, it is reasonable to presume that they had knowledge or intention that such an attack would result in death. In the instant case, as per the statements, the weapons used were lathi, rod, farsa, talwar, etc., and when we look at the nature of the injuries, it is clear that the injuries were caused by using sharp-cutting weapons and also with hard blunt substance. Injuries were inflicted on the right temporal region of scalp at the base of the right ear, right side of occipital region of scalp, left side of occipital region of scalp, etc. Open declaration by the accused that a person would be killed, indicates his intention and, as held by this Court in Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 9 SCC 31 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1323, the question as to whether there was an intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case which has to be attributed on evidence by the trial court. The above facts would indicate that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are made out.” 30. So far as judgment passed in the case of Vineet Mahajan Vrs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2017 (14) SCC 803 is concerned, it would appear that the High Court had set aside the charge framed under Section 307 I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge although the injury on the person of one injured Vineet Mahajan and one Avnish Mahajan were grievous in nature and caused by sharp edged weapon and inflicted with sharp edged weapon, who were sitting inside their Car and they were attacked with sharp deadly weapons including Garasa, Datars, Baseball Bat etc. and there was intention to kill them. However, in the instant case the Doctor had not opined any grievous injury sustained by the injured Arjun Sao and Fulchand Sao. Thus, the above judgment is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 31. and there was intention to kill them. However, in the instant case the Doctor had not opined any grievous injury sustained by the injured Arjun Sao and Fulchand Sao. Thus, the above judgment is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 31. In both the cases, Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that the question as to whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend upon the facts of a given case, which has to be attributed in evidence on facts by the trial court. 32. However, in the instant criminal revision application it would appear from the F.I.R. that a Panchayati was convened regarding dispute of land between both the sides and it can be presumed that there was no intention to kill when an Panchayati was convened among the persons of both the sides in presence of Mukhiya, Teacher and Social Workers in the premises of the Shiva Temple and an altercation took place between both the sides suddenly which had resulted into injury caused to the informant and his other family members, i.e. the injured persons. However, the informant has concealed the injuries sustained by the side of the accused persons, i.e. the petitioners’ side which had been stated by the independent witnesses, namely Kartik Prasad, Basudeo Mahto and Tahal Mahto at Paragraph 11, 12, 13 respectively and Shambhu Prasad, Tejo Mahto and Manoj Kumar Prasad 46, 47, 48 respectively of the case diary. 33. Even while arguing before this Court the informant has failed to provide any injury report issued by any competent Doctor of any Government Hospital, where the injured persons, namely Arjun Sao and Fulchand Sao were treated. 34. Thus, after giving anxious consideration, this Court is of the view that no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners, although, the occurrence of assault had taken place. 35. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that at the time of submission of chargesheet by the police against the petitioners the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C was not made out in absence of any grievous injury found on the person of any injured persons, namely Arjun Sao and Fulchand Sao. 36. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that at the time of submission of chargesheet by the police against the petitioners the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C was not made out in absence of any grievous injury found on the person of any injured persons, namely Arjun Sao and Fulchand Sao. 36. Therefore, the learned Court below has failed to consider that the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out in absence of any grievous injury sustained by the injured, namely Arjun Sao and Fulchand Sao as well as informant-Basudeo Sao. 37. It is well settled that if the foundation is wrong then the Court can set aside the proceeding at any stage irrespective of the fact that the prosecution witnesses have been examined. 38. It has been held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.03.2023 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No.483 of 2022 (Rajesh Kacchap and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.) at paragraph nos.37 and 38 as follows:- “Para-37:-Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to “Ritesh Tewari”19, “Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar”20 and “Kavita Manikikar”21, to put forth a proposition that once registration of zero FIR on 31st July 2022 by the officer-in-charge of Argora PS at Ranchi and transfer of zero FIR to Panchla PS on the same day are held illegal the consequences shall follow as expressed in Latin maxim“sublato fundamento cadit opus”, which means when foundation is removed the superstructure falls. Para-38:-The law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases is very clear that every subsequent acts/actions taken pursuant to any order or decision, or act or omission on the part of the authority shall be non est.” 39. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangal Prasad Tamoli (Dead) By LRS. vs. Narvadeshwar Mishra (Dead) By LRS and Ors. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 422 at para no.13 as follows:- “Para-13:-When we put to the learned counsel as to how he could in the present appeal filed in the year 1999 challenge the order of remand made by the judgment of the High Court on 18-1-1966 in Second Appeal No. 3033 of 1958, the learned counsel drew our attention to the 13 decision of this Court in Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commr. of Ranchi [ (1981) 2 SCC 103 : (1981) 2 SCR 764 ] as authority for the proposition that an order of remand by the High Court being an interlocutory judgment, which did not terminate the proceedings, it is open to the aggrieved party to challenge it after the final judgment. This Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [ (1960) 3 SCR 590 : AIR 1960 SC 941 ], under similar circumstances, took the view that an order of remand was an interlocutory judgment which did not terminate the proceedings and hence could be challenged in an appeal from the final order [Ed.: In light of Section 105(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, such an appeal would lie only to the Supreme Court under Article 136 as Section 105(2) is inapplicable to the Supreme Court acting under Article 136. This in fact is the reasoning in Satyadhyan Ghosal, as followed in (2004) 12 SCC 754 .]. This view was again reiterated in K.C. Bose [ (1981) 2 SCC 103 : (1981) 2 SCR 764 ] wherein it is observed (SCR p. 767 A-B): (SCC p. 106, para 7) “Mr. Sinha appearing for the respondent was unable to cite any authority of this Court taking a contrary view or overriding the decisions referred to above. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that it is open to the appellant to assail even the first judgment of the High Court and if we hold that this judgment was legally erroneous then all the subsequent proceedings, namely, the order of remand, the order passed after remand, the appeal and the second judgment given by the High Court in appeal against the order of remand would become non est.” 40. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ritesh Tewari and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 677 at paragraph nos.32 and 34 as follows:- “Para-32:-It is settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironical to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. (Vide Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State 14 of Assam [ (1998) 3 SCC 381 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 872] ; Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa [ (2004) 8 SCC 599 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1181] and SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari [ (2006) 1 SCC 530 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 143].) Para-34:-In Mangal Prasad Tamoli v. Narvadeshwar Mishra [ (2005) 3 SCC 422 ] this Court held that if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside.” 41. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 at paragraph nos.107, 108 and 111 as follows:- “Para-107:-It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim sublato fundamento cadit opusmeaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case. Para-108:-In Badrinath v. Govt. of T.N. [ (2000) 8 SCC 395 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 13 : AIR 2000 SC 3243 ] and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam [ (2001) 10 SCC 191 ] this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally. Para-111:-Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned being a nullity, cannot be sustained. As a consequence, subsequent proceedings/orders/FIR/investigation stand automatically vitiated and are liable to be declared non est.” 42. Para-111:-Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned being a nullity, cannot be sustained. As a consequence, subsequent proceedings/orders/FIR/investigation stand automatically vitiated and are liable to be declared non est.” 42. Thus, in view of the discussions made, the impugned order dated 08.05.2019, passed in S.T. No. 328 of 2018, by Shri Kaushal Kishore Jha, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh is set aside in part to the extent that the charges can be framed under Sections 323, 341, 324, 325/34 of the I.P.C. and the matter is remitted to the Court of learned C.J.M./A.C.J.M./J.M. having jurisdiction of Barkatha P.S. Case No. 79 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1588 of 2016, and the trial shall proceed further in the court of learned C.J.M/A.C.J.M./J.M. 43. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 983 of 2019 is allowed in part and the case is remitted back to the learned Court below. 44. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Hazaribagh, or his Successor Court and who may transmit the case to the court of learned C.J.M./A.C.J.M./J.M. having jurisdiction of Barkatha P.S. Case No. 79 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1588 of 2016. 45. However, it will be open to the informant and the injured to move before the learned Trial Judge, if any evidence is brought with regard to sustaining grievous injury by the injured persons during the trial and without prejudice to the order passed by this Court the learned Court below may consider these documents filed on behalf of the informant or the injured persons and may pass necessary order in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made by this Court.