Criminal Miscellaneous No.14558 OF 1999 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ---- 1. CHANDRIKA YADAV @ CHANDRIKA PRASAD YADAV. 2. SATYENDRA YADAV, BOTH SONS OF LATE JAGDEO YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KALANAUR, TOLA MIRA BIGHA, POLICE STATION, MAKHDUMPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF JEHANABAD. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEEN DAYAL YADAV SON OF BUFAI YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KALANAUR, TOLA MIRA BIGHA, POLICE STATION MAKHDUMPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF JEHANABAD. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : M/S Ramakant Sharma, Sr.Adv. L.K. Sharma, Adv. Akshaylal Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 7.6.1999 passed by Sri J.P. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jehanabad in Misc. No. Case No.265 of 1997/Trial No.312 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition, which was filed on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that a - 2 - complaint petition was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that accused persons including these two petitioners forcibly cut a Babool tree, which was standing over the land under the possession of the complainant. It was alleged that while the son of the complainant raised objection at the time of occurrence, he was slapped by the accused persons. It was also alleged that firing was also made from a rifle by the petitioner no.1. However, no one received any injury. After filing the complaint petition, witnesses were examined in support of the complaint case and thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. At the stage of charge, two petitioners filed petition for their discharge and by the impugned order, learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, the present petition was filed by the petitioners and this petition was admitted on 1.9.1999. While admitting the case, this Court had directed that further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed. 3. Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits - 3 - that the land, over which complainant-opposite party no.2 was claiming title and possession, was a Gair Mazrua land and there was dispute relating to possession and title over the land. He further submits that the petitioner no.1 was a Professor and it was not expected that a Professor can commit such crime. He has also submitted that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner no.1 was admitted at Batra Hospital at New Delhi and as such there was no occasion for petitioner no.1 to remain present at the place of occurrence as alleged by the complainant. On those grounds, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of the impugned order of rejection of discharge petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel has lastly submitted that complainant is dead and as such there is no chance of conviction of the petitioners. So far as the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, at this stage, this Court is not in a position to accept the plea of alibi at this stage. However, it would be open to the petitioners to point out this very fact before the court below during the trial and the court below may pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 5. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel - 4 - appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. She submits that while rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate has examined the evidences, which were brought on record and thereafter, by assigning a detailed reason, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition. Accordingly, she has submitted to reject such petition. 6. Besides, hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the complaint petition as well as impugned order. I do not find any error in the order whereby learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and petition stands rejected. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 29.4.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.