IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.48393 of 2007 RAMANAND PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 24/2/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No.2 despite valid service of notice. The case diary, called for by order dated 22.1.2008, has been received and learned counsel for the State has made submissions from the same. Chhatauni P.S. Case No.117/02 was registered on 28.10.2002 under Sections-302 and 120B/34 of I.P.C. against three named accused. Neither is the petitioner nor is his son named therein. The F.I.R. states that the three named accused were accompanied by a fourth unnamed accused. During investigation, it has transpired that the son of the petitioner, Sujay Pandey, was also involved in the episode. Based on the suspected involvement of his son, the name of the petitioner had figured. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sujay Pandey was his son. His son living in the house was a natural phenomenon. There was no material in the case diary to suggest that the petitioner, aware of the misdeeds of his son in the present police case, harboured and concealed him, aware of the crime 2 committed to save him from legal punishment or that he tried to mislead the police about the presence of his son in the house. There was, thus, no material during investigation to invoke Section-212 of I.P.C. against the petitioner. In the same breath, Learned counsel submitted that there was no material in the case diary suggestive of the petitioner being a part of any conspiracy for the murder of the deceased Binod Kumar. The court below simply rejected the application for discharge on the premise that the son of the petitioner was “a criminal son”. Learned counsel for the State from the materials in the case diary acknowledges that it does not contain any materials of a conduct on part of the petitioner under Section-212 of I.P.C. to invoke applicability of the same. It is further acknowledged from the case diary that there is no material of the petitioner being involved in a conspiracy for the murder of the deceased. The crucial words of the language of Section- 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that “the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against accused,”. True it is that in an order refusing to discharge, the trial court is not required to 3 write a detailed and exhaustive order. Nonetheless, there has to be a brief discussion, a prima facie conclusion, of the nature of the materials collected during investigation that there were materials fit to go to trial. That the materials may not result in conviction is an entirely different matter, of no relevance at this stage. Applying the aforesaid test, in the facts of the present case, the father was living with his son. The investigation does not appear to contain any material of the knowledge of the father of the misdeeds of the son. The son may be wayward outside, but his behaviour may be exemplary at home, giving no opportunity for the father to suspect his conduct. Something more than “a father and son relationship, living under the same roof” is required to invoke Section-212 of I.P.C. Likewise, this relationship and living under one roof cannot give rise to a criminal conspiracy, per se. Something more shall be required to show either a meeting of minds, a course of conduct, a series of events etc. The order dated 15.9.2007 is cryptic and does not display any consideration of the nature of the materials during investigation on basis of which the trial court thought it fit to hold that there were 4 materials sufficient to go to trial, insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The order dated 15.9.2007 in Sessions Trial No.723/04 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Motihari at East Champaran, is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in light of the aforesaid discussion. The application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)