IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14795 of 2010 SHIV SHAMBHO CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE UDAY NATH CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE P.O. NEHRA, P.S. MANIGACHHI, DISTT. DARBHANGA, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PROFESSOR COLONY, GEETA BHAWAN CAMPUS, P.S. TOWN, DISTT. DARBHANGA. ------- PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU C.B.I., NORTH BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, Adv. For the C.B.I. : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Adv. 2. 21.12.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 16.1.2010 passed by Special Judge, CBI, North Bihar, Patna, in connection with Special Case No. 9 of 2008 (R.C. Case No. 25(A) of 2008 by which he has refused to discharge the petitioner. The petitioner prayed for discharge on the ground that the allegations are not substantiated or supported by cogent material. Moreover, the money was not recovered from the personal possession of the petitioner or his office or his house. The further submission is that there is no local witness on the point of recovery and the prosecution case is absurd. The counsel submits that the case is absurd because on 17.10.2008 the Complainant had a grievance that the petitioner was not disbursing the rest of the amount of the overdraft facility but, in fact, he had withdrawn 25,000/- rupees even on the next date. Moreover, the cheque which was recovered in the transaction was taken from fly leaf of an account which has 2 been closed in the year 2007 itself. The petitioner also submits that the money which was recovered was in fact, part of the money which was to be deposited through a proper paying slip which was recovered from the drawer of the cashier and, therefore, it cannot be tainted money. However, I am of the view that at the stage of framing of charge, this Court cannot meticulously go into such details and even if there is some dispute with regard to the cheque which was recovered, fact remains that the money which was recovered from the possession of the co-accused had been accepted at the behest of the petitioner. In view of such, the application is dismissed. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)