Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1182 of 2009 ====================================================== Binay Kumar Singh son of Late Ramjatan Singh, resident of village- Chitab Khurd, P.S. Amas, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Rajendra Bhuiyan son of Sukhdeo Bhuiyan, resident of village Chitap Khurd, P.S. Amas, District Gaya. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 08-11-2012 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. By the impugned order dated 02.05.2009 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gaya in Trial No. 17 of 2009 arising out of Amas P.S. Case No. 59 of 2002, prayer for discharge made on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely on suspicion the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted in the aforesaid criminal case. According to the learned counsel, although independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, yet the prayer for discharge made on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected. After having heard the parties and on going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the learned trial court has recorded a finding of fact that there are sufficient materials for framing charge against the petitioner for offences under [STATUTE] as Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1182 of 2009 (3) dt.08-11-201 2/22 also under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is well settled that for the purpose of framing charge the court is required to find out a prima facie case. Even grave suspicion would be sufficient for framing charge against the accused. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another [AIR 1979 SC 366] and in view of the finding of fact recorded by the learned trial court, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for interfering with the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioner from the criminal case in question. The application seems to be completely misconceived. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the pleas during the course of trial. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below with a direction to expedite the trial of the petitioner, so that it is concluded at an early date preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.