RANDHIR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as the Code) has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.4.1998 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge -VIII, Patna in S.Tr. No. 264 of 1989, whereby and whereunder he has framed charge under Sections 147 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. There is also prayer for quashing the entire prosecution against the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in short, as it appears from the present miscellaneous application is that on 26.7.1988 at about 2 PM informant Ram Badan Singh was ploughing and irrigating his land when the petitioner alongwith other accused variously armed arrived there and out of them accused Viveka Singh and Mahanand Singh were armed with gun, Sahjanand Singh and Sachitanand Singh were carrying Farsa and others were armed with Lathi. They blocked the flow of canal water towards the field of the informant, upon which the informant protested and thereafter Sahjanand Singh and Sachitanand Singh assaulted him by means of Farsa. Informant 'sson rushed to save him but Sahjanand Singh assaulted him also by Farsa. Others assaulted the informant and his son by means of Lathi. On the basis of statement of informant the Police registered Bihta P.S. Case No. 204 of 1988 and after investigation submitted charge -sheet against nine persons including the present petitioner on the basis of which cognizance was taken and later on the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. It appears that by the impugned order dated 15.4.1998 the learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charge against accused persons including the petitioner. Against the said order of framing of charge, the petitioner has filed the present application before this Court.

(3.) IT is the contention of learned counsel that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge without following the provision of Sections 225, 226 and 228 of the Code has framed the charge against the petitioner. Further submission is that all other accused who faced the trial have been acquitted by the trial court by judgment dated 16.3.1998 and same type of evidence is likely to come against the petitioner and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by compelling the petitioner to face the trial. Last submission of learned counsel is that the continuation of present prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court.