IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8514 of 2011 Rajnish Kumar Gupta Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2 27.09.2011 Instant petition has been filed against an order dated 15.02.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Sessions Trial No.324 of 2010 whereby and whereunder a prayer made on behalf of petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present prosecution happens to be on account of seizure of four vehicles but neither the police during course of investigation collected any positive and definite information that the vehicle so seized were stolen property nor these vehicles were connected with any case properly. It has further been submitted that one Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration no.JH055 – 2926 belongs to him as he happens to be the purchaser from its registered owner, while one Alto Car bearing registration no.JH12B 1527, admittedly from the written report, 2 belongs to his uncle but again has been shown against the petitioner. With regard to remaining two, though it was parked at a public place by the side of the road in front of shop of petitioner, but the owner of those vehicles have been identified during course of investigation and so submitted that none of the sections stood applicable against the petitioner and as such the learned lower court instead of rejecting the prayer ought to have discharged. At the other hand the learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer and submitted that roaming inquiry is not at all permissible at the stage of framing of charge save and except having consideration of un-rebutted document produced by the accused. At the time of framing of charge, the matter now remains finally decided that grave suspension is sufficient to justify the same. At this stage, the court is not required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the fact emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients of the offence. The court is forbidden to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction, nor is any weight to 3 be attached to the probable defemce. However, the approach to the issue of framing charge has to be pragmatic. Insistence merely on completing the formalities results in putting an innocent to trial, thus the charge should not be framed in cases where the available material does not disclose all the ingredients of the offence. From the order impugned it is not traceable whether the learned lower court had taken care of to see from the case diary presence of un-rebutted, conclusive material scratching prosecution case from its root, so submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, taking into account the totality of the event, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned lower court to consider afresh in the aforesaid background and in case the submission of petitioner is not found to be supported with such extent, then the learned lower court will proceed with the trial, and the petition is disposed of in terms as observed. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)