IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45832 of 2007 1. ZAFARUL HAQUE 2. Tanveerul Haque, both sons of Azizool Haque 3. Azizul Haque S/O Late Rahmatullah Ansari, All residents of Village- Kalyanpur Tola Mangalpur, P.S. Kalyanpur, District-East Champaran ----- Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioners : S/Sri Yogesh Chandra Verma Sr. Advocate Subhash Kr.Sinha & Raghunath Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.p.p. -------- 03 12-03-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners while invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have prayed for quashing of the order dated 1.8.2007 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, F.T.C.No.IV, East Champaran , Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 632 of 2007 arising out of Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.105 of 2006, whereby the petition for discharge filed by the petitioners was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 448,323,324, 307, 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code, during the investigation police did not find any material to indicate commission of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and, as such, the police submitted chargesheet under Sections 2 323,341,324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. After submission of chargesheet learned Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the materials available on record and it appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 341,323,324 and 504 of the Penal code. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate differing with the chargesheet has taken cognizance under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the basis of materials available on record, no case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and, as such, at the stage of charge, a petition under Section-227 Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.IV, East Champaran at Motihari which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide its order dated 1/08/2007. Learned Senior Counsel has assailed the order mainly on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge while passing the order has not at all examined any material nor he has assigned any reason for rejecting the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. He also submits that there is no allegation in the entire case record to suggest that there was 3 repetition of blow of knife and on these grounds he has challenged the said order. Learned counsel has also referred to a Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009(2) BBCJ 285(SC) ; Renuka Vrs. State of Karnataka and also a case reported in 2008(1)PLJR 734 ; Manoranjan Singh & Anr Vs. State of Bihar. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that the judicial order should not be passed in mechanical manner and even while rejecting the discharge petition, reasons is to be assigned by the concerned court. I have also heard Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A. P.P. for the State, who opposes the prayer of the petitioner. By referring impugned order, he submits that the learned Sessions Judge in his impugned order has categorically dealt with the materials, which were collected during the investigation. He submits that injury report was also examined by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge and only after being fully satisfied that prima facie offence under Section 307 Cr.P.C. was made out, the court has rejected the petition for discharge of the petitioners. I have also examined the impugned order, which 4 apparently assigns a detail reason. I may indicate that the court was exercising its jurisdiction under Section 227 Cr.P.C.. At this stage , it would be necessary to quote Section 227 Cr.P.C. which is as follows:- “227. Discharge- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.” The statutory provision, i.e. Section 227 Cr.P.C. says that the court while allowing discharge petition is duty bound to assign reason. In the present case, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge after examining the materials available on record by assigning reason has rejected the discharge petition. I do not find any merit in this petition and, accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J)