AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 06-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
The present application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Cr. Revision No.97 of 2018, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition, which was filed under Section 397 and 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’) as well as for quashing the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Darbhanga in G.R. No.958 of 2016 corresponding to Trial No.1050 of 2018 whereby the learned jurisdictional Magistrate has rejected the petition under Section 239 of the CrPC filed on behalf of the petitioners u/s 147, 148, 149, 341, 343, 324, 307, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).
The case of prosecution, in brief, speaks that on 24.03.2016 at 1.00 P.M., all petitioners came to the door of informant namely, Boua Jee Choudhary being variously armed with bhala, garansha, lathi with intention to kill the informant as well as assaulted his brother namely, Sunil Choudhary and Nagendra Choudhary, who came to rescue the informant. Thereafter, all accused persons taken away suitcase, box and domestic items from the house of the informant. It is alleged that thereafter the villagers taken away all injured persons to Darbhanga for treatment.
On the basis of aforesaid statement, Moro P.S. Case No.15 of 2016 has been registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 343, 324, 307, 379 and 504 of the IPC.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the occurrence was free fight in nature, where both parties have received injuries. It is submitted that innocent persons of family members of the petitioners were implicated with present crime in question. It is submitted that from the factual allegations, this is not a case of Section 307 of the IPC. It is submitted that through impugned order, the legal aspects was not appreciated in correct manner and, therefore, same is almost perverse.
Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that a revision petition was preferred by petitioner before learned trial court against dismissal order under Section 239 of the CrPC. It is pointed out that merely on the basis of suspicion, the charge could be framed. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the informant has relied upon legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Sajjan Kumar vs. C.B.I. [(2010) 9 SCC 368]. It is submitted that the impugned order dealt all relevant provisions and supplied reasons while rejecting the revision petition and, therefore, it cannot be said a perverse order, on its face.
In view of aforesaid, as settled legal proposition suggest that merely on the basis of suspicion charge could be framed particularly, when the occurrence is not denied by the petitioners, as counter case of present case was also lodged by petitioners’ side, accordingly, this Court is convinced enough that there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Cr. Revision No.97 of 2018.
Hence, the present petition stands dismissed.
Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the learned trial court forthwith.