IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15611 of 2008 1.MD.MAHTAB son of Jamil Akhtar, resident of Village-Chhoti Sankh, P.S.-Begusarai Mufassil, Dist.-Begusarai 2.Md. Jahangir @ Janangir son of late Md.Shakil, Resident of Mirdah Toli, Ballia, P.S.-Ballia, Dist.-Begusarai, at present residing at Saharsa Basti P.S.-Saharsa, Dist.-Saharsa. …….. …….Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Radhey Tanti son of Banarsi Tanti, resident of Village-Chhoti Sankh, P.S.-Begusarai Mufassil, Dist.-Begusarai. ……. …….Opp. Party. ----------- 2. 25.6.2010. Heard Mr. Abul Kalam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.3.2008 passed by learned Fast Track Court No.III, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.428 of 2007. By the said order the learned court below has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while pressing the petition, has referred to the statement of the victim girl recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was argued that the victim girl in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had stated that she willfully had gone along with Sunil Mahto. Accordingly, he argued that in the present case both the petitioners were falsely forwarded by the police. It was further argued that it appears that the petitioner no.1 2 was made accused in the first information report but so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned he was Mausa of co-accused Shah Nawaz. It was further submitted that in the first information report only allegation against Mahtab Alam is that after the daughter of the informant was traceless, he went to the house of Shah Nawaz and petitioner no.1 along with other co-accused persons abused and wanted to assault the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the statement of the victim girl recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also submitted that she in her statement disclosed her age as 18 years in the column of age and during her statement she disclosed her age as 20 years. Accordingly, it has been argued that without any material both the petitioners have been made accused and at the time of charge a petition was filed for their discharge and the learned Judge without any material has rejected the discharge petition. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on record. On perusal of first information report it appears that the informant has categorically stated that his minor daughter, who was a student of Class-V aged about 14-15 years, was enticed and kept by the accused persons and when the informant went to the house of co- accused Shah Nawaz the accused persons came out and abused and tried to assault. It was also stated in the first information 3 report that when the informant visited the house of Shah Nawaz, the victim girl was inside the house and, thereafter, through a scooter she was carried away by co-accused Shah Nawaz. After registering the first information report, investigation was conducted and, thereafter, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons including both the petitioners. When the case reached to the stage of charge, a petition under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed for discharge of both the petitioners. However, by impugned order dated 10.3.2008, the learned Judge, by assigning a detailed reason has rejected the discharge petition. The learned Judge, while hearing the petition filed for discharge, had also examined the case diary and after being satisfied that there were materials against the petitioners and keeping in view the seriousness of the offences, has rejected the discharge petition. After going through the impugned order, I do not find that the learned Judge has committed any error. It need not to be elaborated that in a criminal case trial is a rule and discharge is exception. I do not find any merit in the present petition and, accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)