( 2025:JHHC:28879 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 80 of 2024 Abdul Bari @ Md. Abdul Bari, aged about 40 years, son of Sikandar Ali, Resident of Nawada, P.O. Manirampur, P.S. Pakur, District-Pakur ...... … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Maudud Sk @ Maudud Alam 3. Mahimuddin Shekh Both sons of late Masud Alam, resident of Nawada, P.O. Manirampur, P.S. Pakur (M), District-Pakur .…. … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Md. Yasir Arafat, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. For the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate 11/ 19.09.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The present revision application has been filed against the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in Misc Criminal Application No. 158/2023, whereby the petition filed by the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 under section 227/228(1)(a) of Cr.P.C has been allowed, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 the petition filed by the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 was allowed and O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 were discharged under section 307 of I.P.C and since rest of the sections were triable by the learned Magistrate, the file has been remitted back to the learned S.D.J.M by the learned Sessions Judge. He submits that impugned order is not in accordance with law in view of that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 submits that now the learned S.D.J.M has proceeded further and even charge has been framed and certain witnesses have already been examined. 5. In view of above and looking into the contents of order dated 18.10.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur, it transpires ( 2025:JHHC:28879 ) that the learned court has found that one injury is grievous in nature and other two injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and there appears no repetition of assault on the head of either of the injured which can lead to infer the intention was not there to cause death of the injured. The learned court has further found that occurrence had taken place at the spurt of moment on account of protest made by the informant and others. In this background the learned court has found that so far section 307 I.P.C. is concerned, that is not made out and O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 have been discharged from section 307 I.P.C. and for rest of the sections being triable by the learned Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to transmit the file to the learned S.D.J.M., Pakur for the purpose of explaining the contents of charge. It has been pointed out that charge has been framed and certain witnesses have been examined. 6. In view of above, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 7. However, in course of trial, if any material is coming in the knowledge of the learned court, the learned court may alter the charge at any stage. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi- Dt. 19.09.2025