IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12788 of 2008 Maujelal Choudhary, Son of Late Ishwar Choudhary, resident of Village-Kuddutarh, P.S. Jandaha, District-Vaishali ( the then Physical Teacher, Government High School, Maner) -------------- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 24-06-2010 Heard Sri Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.2.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur in Maner P.S. Case No.65 of 2005, corresponding to Trial No.1639 of 2007, registered under Sections 420,467,468,471,427, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. Sri Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, submits that the learned Magistrate without assigning any reason and without discussing the evidence has rejected the discharge petition in a perfunctory manner. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is mandatory on the part of the court to assign a detailed reason discussing the entire evidence, while hearing the discharge petition and passing the order on it, but the learned 2 Magistrate has not discussed anything and only on the ground of order of cognizance he has rejected the discharge petitioner. It was further argued that though the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the written report of the informant, the informant was not re-examined during the investigation. According to Sri Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a serious defect and accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.2.2008. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. She submits that as per provisions under Section 239,227 or 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the time of rejection of discharge petition, there is no requirement to assign any reason. It was submitted that however, if the courts considers discharging an accused, it is mandatory on the part of the court to assign a detailed reason. It was further argued that in the F.I.R. itself there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner being a Physical Training Teacher had instigated some other accused persons and thereafter, the office of the informant was ransacked. The informant was also threatened/ intimidated by the petitioner. It was further argued that the petitioner was illegally and unauthorisedly keeping the official records and he had also misappropriated the fund of the School. On perusal of the impugned order, it also appears that the learned Magistrate, while rejecting the discharge petition, has examined the entire records including the F.I.R., Case diary and 3 other materials and after being satisfied that there is sufficient material available on the record, has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. I am of the view that at the time of rejection of discharge petition, Section 239 Cr.P.C. does not make it mandatory to assign reason. However, at the time of discharge, as per statutory provision, reason is to be assigned. Meaning thereby that in a criminal case, trial is a rule and discharge is exception. On perusal of the record, I am satisfied that while rejecting the discharge petition filed by the petitioner , the learned Magistrate has committed no error and moreover, the order was passed long back on 19.2.2008. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the case and the petition stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )