Kuldip Yadav & Ors. vs The State Of Bihar

Heard the parties.

The present application has been preferred for quashing of order dated 15.02.2019 passed by learned ADJ III, Munger in S.T. No. 250 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, learned trial court rejected discharge petition dated 04.02.2019 filed by the petitioners under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. in Kharagpur P.S. Case no. 253/17.

Brief fact of the case is that on 24.8.2017 at about 1 P.M. the informant was cleaning the drain when petitioners alongwith accused persons arrived there variously armed with and started abusing her by telling why she is putting soil there, thereupon informant replied that she is putting it on her own land, thereafter petitioners assaulted her by means of iron rod and khanti. When her daughter-in-law came to rescue her, she too was assaulted by petitioner no. 2 by rod due to which her head was injured. On alarm her grandson rushed there, who took them to Sadar Hospital, Munger, where they are being treated. The reason is that petitioners want to grab the land of the informant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet exonerating petitioner no. 1 from all the allegations as raised against him through FIR, whereas the allegations against petitioner no. 2 and 3 qua offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC was dropped after investigations. It is submitted that learned Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance against petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 307 and other allied sections of IPC as mentioned in the formal FIR. It is submitted that while taking different note, no reason was assigned by learned Jurisdictional Magistrate and, therefore, the order of cognizance appears bad in eyes of law, but it is conceded that the cognizance order dated 20.12.2017, as passed by learned ACJM IV, Munger was not challenged rather these petitioners preferred petition under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., before learned Sessions Judge seeking discharge.

It is further argued by learned counsel that the petitioner no. 1 is an old person and was falsely implicated with present case. It is pointed out that he was 75 years old and retired from the post of headmaster and implicated only out of oblique motive. It is also submitted that the injury as caused upon Girja Devi was on non-vital part though it was grievous and injury as found upon her daughter-in-law on head was simple in nature, therefore, on the aforesaid basis it can be said safely that not grave suspicions appears against petitioners as to frame charges for the offences punishable under Section 307 and all other allied sections of IPC as raised through FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335].

Learned APP while opposing the quashing petition submitted that injury is not the only criteria to make out a prima-facie case for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC. It is submitted that different factors like, nature of weapons, manner of assault, pre and post conduct of accused during the occurrence etc. are reruired to be look into. In support of his submissions learned APP relied upon the report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shamsher Singh reported in 2025 INSC 503.

It is submitted that all petitioners were named in FIR and the implication of the petitioner no. 1 was made with aid of section 34 of IPC doesn’t lead to conclusion ipso-facto that no case was made out against him, particularly, when the injured witnesses categorically stated through FIR, that the petitioners were actively involved during the occurrence which was even found true by the police after investigation. It is submitted that merely on the ground that the allegation of specific assault is not available against petitioner no. 1 and the injury was found on non-vital part, and also the other injury which was found simple in nature, it cannot be said the rejecting the prayer seeking discharge, which is the impugned order of present proceeding is bad in eyes of law.

Learned APP further submitted that the issues which were raised by learned counsel for the petitioner further appears disputing the factual aspects of the case, veracity of which can be ascertained during the trial only.

In view of aforesaid factual submissions this Court is convinced enough that merely on the ground of body part, where assault was made and nature of injury which was found simple, the implications of the petitioners with present crime in question cannot be said bad in eyes of law, particularly when the petitioners are named in FIR, accordingly, the present quashing petition stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.

TCR, if any, be returned to learned trial court alongwith the copy of this judgment.