Dismissed¶39

Md. Ajijul Hak v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC6 May 2025CR. REV./354/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discharge application under Section 228 Cr.P.C.; framing of charge; charge under Section 307 IPC; ingredients of offence at charge stage; case diary materials; case and counter case; delay of about 15 days in lodging FIR; land dispute between parties; distinguishing unreported Patna High Court decision in Criminal Revision No.239 of 2018; Session Trial No.320 of 2022; Singhi/Singhia P.S. Case No.95 of 2018; Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Rosera, Samastipur; Patna High Court Criminal Revision No.354 of 2024; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Existence of a case and counter case prima facie proves that some criminal act was committed by both the parties on 18.07.2018; this does not furnish ground to discharge the accused. ¶34

Md. Ajijul Hak Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether, at the stage of consideration of charge, the charge under Section 307 IPC (and the refusal of discharge under Section 228 Cr.P.C.) should be interfered with on the petitioners' contention that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are absent. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

At the stage of consideration of charge the Trial Court is confined to the materials in the case diary; the case diary revealed statements of witnesses in which the ingredients of Section 307 IPC were prima facie found, and the learned Trial Judge therefore refused discharge.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Existence of a case and counter case prima facie proves that some criminal act was committed by both the parties on 18.07.2018; this does not furnish ground to discharge the accused.

¶34

Key takeaways

This Court is not in a position to hold at this stage that the Trial Court proceeded to frame charge under Section 307 IPC against the accused persons in the absence of any ingredient of that offence.ratio¶36
The unreported coordinate-bench decision in Criminal Revision No.239 of 2018 (where Section 307 IPC was dropped for want of prima facie evidence of intention/knowledge to cause death) does not assist the petitioners; in the instant case no such case was made out.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision against rejection of discharge application under Section 228 Cr.P.C. — Charges under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 447, 379 and 504 IPC in Session Trial No.320 of 2022 arising from Singhi P.S. Case No.95 of 2018 (incident of 18.07.2018; FIR lodged 02.08.2018 after about 15 days; case and counter case between the parties) — Held: (i) existence of a case and counter case prima facie proves that some criminal act was committed by both parties on 18.07.2018; (ii) at the stage of consideration of charge the Trial Court is confined to the case diary, which disclosed statements of witnesses showing prima facie ingredients of Section 307 IPC, on which basis the Trial Judge refused discharge; (iii) this Court is not in a position to hold that the Trial Court proceeded to frame charge under Section 307 IPC in the absence of any ingredient of that offence; (iv) the unreported coordinate-bench decision in Criminal Revision No.239 of 2018 (decided 25.10.2019), where Section 307 IPC was dropped for want of prima facie evidence of intention/knowledge to cause death, is distinguishable — 'In the instant case, no such case was made out by the petitioners.' Criminal revision dismissed. (Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.354 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2018 Thana- SINDHIYA District- Samastipur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Md. Ajijul Hak SON OF LATE MD. JAN Resident of Mauja Vari tole, Sanhaka, P.S- Singhia, District- Samastipur, Bihar

¶5

Md Phul Hasan SON OF Moti Rahman Resident of Mauja Vari Rajmani, Biraul, P.S- Biraul, District- Samastipur

¶6

Md Gulab SON OF Md. Ajijul Hak Resident of Mauja vari Tole, Sanhaka, P.S- Singhia, District- Samastipur

¶7

Md Mumtaj @ Mumtaj Alam SON OF Md. Ajijul Hak Resident of Mauja vari Tole, Sanhaka, P.S- Singhia, District- Samastipur

¶8

Md Moti Rahman son of Late Md. Jan Marhum Resident of Mauja Vari Rajmani, Biraul, P.S- Biraul, District- Darbhanga

¶9

Md Bahab@ Ahab SON OF Md. Ajijul Hak Resident of Mauja vari Tole, Sanhaka, P.S- Singhia, District- Samastipur

¶10

Md Naushad SON OF Md. Ajijul Hak Resident of Mauja vari Tole, Sanhaka, P.S- Singhia, District- Samastipur

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subhash Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶17

3 06-05-2025

¶18

The petitioners are accused persons in Session Trial No.320 of 2022, arising out of Singhi P.S. Case No.95 of 2018 in which after investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner under Section 341, 323, 324, 307, 447, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The case was committed to the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Rosera in the district

¶20

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.354 of 2024(3) dt.06-05-2025 2/5

¶21

of Samastipur. The accused persons filed a petition under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. praying for their discharge on the ground that during investigation the prima-facie case for the offences complained of, has not been made out.

¶22

The learned Additional District and Sessions JudgeII, Rosera, Samastipur by his impugned order dated 13.03.2024 rejected the application under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners and fixed a date for consideration of charge.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that as per the informant’s version contained in Fardbeyan the alleged incident took place on 18.07.2018, when he was sitting in front of the entrance door of his house and his elder son was prepared for going to Delhi, where he used to work, all the accused persons armed with Lathi, iron rod, farsa etc. trace-passed into the house of the informant, the informant tried to resist them but the accused persons assaulted him and his son with the intention to kill them. They also took away the mobile phone and a sum of Rs.2500/- from the possession of the informant.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners that the informant lodged the F.I.R. on 02.08.2018, after a lapse of about 15 days of the incident. There

¶25

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.354 of 2024(3) dt.06-05-2025 3/5

¶26

is no explanation of delay in lodging F.I.R. at a belated stage.

¶27

It is also submitted by the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner that a long standing dispute over land is going on between the parties. On the date of occurrence, the informant and his sons severely assaulted the accused persons, as a result of which, one of the accused was admitted to hospital while in course his medical treatment as an indoor patient in the hospital he submitted a fardbeyan on 02.07.2018. Thus, the petitioners made a complaint against the informant and his family members prior to the institution of Singhia P.S. Case No.95 of 2018. There is also no ingredient of offence under Section 307 I.P.C., so at-least the charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. may be dropped by this Court.

¶28

Learned Advocate on behalf of the State has seriously raised objection against the prayer made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted by him that the Investigating Officer collected sufficient evidence in support of the allegation under Section 307 of the I.P.C., when the ingredients of offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was prima-facie found to be proved, charge sheet has been filed. At the stage of consideration of charge, the Trial Court cannot look into the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

¶29

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.354 of 2024(3) dt.06-05-2025 4/5

¶30

On the other hand, Trial Court will confined on the materials in case diary. The case diary reveals the statement of the witnesses where ingredients of offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is prima-facie found and therefore, the learned Trial Judge refused the prayer for discharging the accused persons at the time of consideration of charge.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

¶32

This Court finds that indisputably, there are case and counter case instituted by both the parties over the incident that took place on 18.07.2018.

¶33

Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the informant initially assaulted one of the accused persons with the help of Lathi and as a retaliation, the accused persons assaulted the informant and his sons.

¶34

Existence of case and counter case, prima-facie proves that there was some criminal act committed by both the parties on 18.07.2018. The learned Trial Judge decided to frame charge against the accused persons under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 447, 379 and 504 of the I.P.C. on perusal of the materials in case diary. This Court is not in a position to hold at this stage that the Trial Court proceeded to frame charge under

¶35

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.354 of 2024(3) dt.06-05-2025 5/5

¶36

Section 307 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons in the absence of any ingredient of offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C.

¶37

In support of his contention, the learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to an unreported decision of this Court passed in Criminal Revision No.239 of 2018 on 25.10.2019. In the said unreported decision, a Coordinate Bench of this Court dropped Section 307 of the I.P.C. from the charge sheet on the ground that there is no prima-facie evidence to the effect that the accused persons assaulted the victim with the intention and knowledge that such act would cause death of the informant.

¶38

In the instant case, no such case was made out by the petitioners.

¶39

For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the instant criminal revision is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed.

¶40

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶41

mdrashid/-

¶42

U T

Md. Ajijul Hak v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Ajijul Hak v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Jitendra Sharma Vs Richa Singh

Danish @ Danish Hasmi @ Danish Hashmi Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Sanjay Jaiswal @ Sanjay Jaiswal Vs The State of Bihar

Bashisth Yadav @ Bashisth Singh Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Hirdayanand Singh Vs The State of Bihar