VISHAMBHAR NATH PRASAD SON OF LATE MANGAL PRASAD SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND PRAKASH KUMAR SON OF LALLAN PRASAD CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On call, none appeared either on behalf of the petitioner or on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2. However, Smt. Veena Rani Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State is present.

(2.) In absence of learned Counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the materials available on record, particularly the order dated 22.3.1999 passed by Sri R.N. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Motihari in Tr. No. 825 of 2002, arising out of Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 67 of 1998 and order dated 13th June, 2002 passed by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in Cr. Revision No. 127/6 of 1999/2002.

(3.) In the present case, an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and his two sons. On the basis of a written report submitted by Opp. Party No. 2 an F.I.R. vide Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 67 of 1998 was registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, after investigation, the police found the case true only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and, as such, final report was submitted. After submission of final form, learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. At the stage of explaining substance on accusation, a discharge petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner. However, by order dated 22.3.1999 the learned Magistrate rejected the discharge petition and directed the petitioner to remain present for explaining the accusation.