IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42691 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-326 Year-2014 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Abdul Hafeez Son of Late Md. Jaan, resident of village, Srirampur, PS Bahera, District Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Md. Izharul Haque, son of Late Md. Anwarul Haque 3. Md. Asrarul Haque, son of Late Md. Anwarul Haque 4. Md. Anzar, son of Md. Asrarul Haque, all residents of village Srirampur, PS Bahera, District Darbhanga ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhusudan Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mrs.Smt Sangeeta Sharma, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 10 11-02-2025 Heard Mr. Madhusudan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the O. P. Nos. 2 to 4 and Mrs. Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, learned APP for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Cr. P. C.) to quash the order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Cr. Rev. No. 239 of 2016 preferred by the petitioner arising out of the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the learned ACJM, Benipur, Darbhanga in Bahera P.S. Case No. 326 of 2014. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that O.P. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are named in the FIR along with six other persons and two unknown persons and as per the allegations, the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4, equipped with sword, knife, farsa, lathi and iron rod firstly surrounded the informant/ petitioner, in furtherance of their Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42691 of 2016(10) dt.11-02-2025 2/4 conspiracy with an intention to kill him and thereafter co-accused, Md. Ahsan ordered the other accused persons to kill the informant and thereafter, accused, Abdul Barik inflicted sword blow at the head of the informant causing serious injury on the head and thereafter, he inflicted another blow by the sword which hit at the neck of the informant and in the meantime, the informant’s son, Hafiz Md. Abdullah tried to save the informant but even then the O.P. No.3, Md. Asrarul Haque was successful in causing knife injury on the right cheek of the informant and O. P. No.2, Md. Izharul Haque inflicted a farsa blow which hit at the right side of the chest (panjra) of the informant and other accused persons started assaulting him by means of lathi, kicks and fists. It is further submitted that from the said prosecution story, it is evident that all the opposite parties actively participated in the alleged occurrence and their specific roles have been mentioned in the FIR and further, two most important witnesses who are the informant and his son have fully supported the allegations levelled against O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 and the injury report of the informant is also corroborating all the allegations but even then, the I.O. did not send up the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 without giving any reason and the learned Magistrate also did not apply his judicial mind and accepted the final form in respect of the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 and that order was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional court where the judicial mind was also not applied. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42691 of 2016(10) dt.11-02-2025 3/4 to 4 has vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that the order impugned has been rightly passed and the police rightly investigated the matter and did not send up the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 and the order impugned passed by the revisional court is reasoned and there is no need to interfere with the same. 5. Heard both the sides, perused the order impugned, FIR and the case diary. O. P. Nos. 2 to 4 are named in the FIR and against the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 there is specific allegation of having participated in the alleged occurrence with particular weapons and the allegation levelled against the O.P. No.2, Md. Izharul Haque, gets corroboration from the injury report of the informant. Altogether five injuries on the body of the informant were found, out of which two were incised wounds and as per the allegation, the accused persons, equipped with sharp edged weapons, lathi etc. attacked the informant and the same gets corroboration from the injury report of the informant. It is very surprising that on the same set of allegations and materials available in the case diary the I.O. chargesheeted some of the accused persons but did not send up the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4, without assigning reasonable reasons and the learned Magistrate also did not apply his judicial mind while accepting the final form in respect of O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 and the revisional court passed the order in a mechanical manner and the statements of the most important eye witnesses, who are the informant and his son, were not appreciated by the learned revisional court as well as the concerned Magistrate in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42691 of 2016(10) dt.11-02-2025 4/4 right perspective. 6. Considering the above facts, this court finds the order impugned to be bad and not sustainable in the eye of law, so, it is hereby set aside and the cognizance taking court is directed to reexamine the materials available in the case diary of Bahera P.S. Case No. 326 of 2014 to find out whether there is prima facie material to proceed with the alleged offences against the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 or not and thereafter pass a fresh reasoned order in respect of O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 without being prejudiced by this order. BKS/- (Shailendra Singh, J) U T