AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 7.
The present application has been filed challenging the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Benipur, Darbhanga whereby the learned court had discharged the accused persons (opposite parties no. 2 to 7) from the offences punishable under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code and the charges having been framed only under Sections 323, 324, 325, 341, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite parties have been wrongly discharged of the offence under Section 304 of the IPC which was clearly made out as against them. She has also made a reference to Annexure-P/3 which is an order dated 21.02.2024 passed by this Court whereby the Hon’ble Court had made an observation that some substance was found in the submission of the APP that the grounds taken for the petitioner to assail the order of cognizance are in the realm of probable defence which can be looked at the stage of trial after adducing evidence on behalf of the parties. It has been submitted that despite such observation of the Hon’ble High Court, the trial court has discharged the opposite parties of the offence under Section 304 of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 has opposed this application and has filed a counter affidavit to bring on record the fact that prior to filing of the instant quashing application against the order dated 19.09.2024 whereby the opposite parties were discharged under Section 304 of the IPC, the charges had already been framed on 01.10.2024 which was not subjected to challenge. It has also been submitted that after framing of the charges, the trial has now proceeded and the examination of the witnesses have started. It has thus been submitted that the present impugned order does not warrant any interference in the facts and circumstances of the case.
I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Taking into consideration the facts that after framing of the charges on 01.10.2024, the trial has now progressed and the witnesses are now being examined which fact has not been refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order allowing the discharge of the opposite parties from one of the charges would not warrant an interference at this stage.
However, it is clear as per the statute itself that the charges can be altered/ amended at any stage and the petitioner can always take recourse to such remedies.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application stands dismissed.