IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10581 of 2008 BUDHI SAGAR PANDEY S/O LATE RADHA PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHARITRAVAN, BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR (TOWN), DISTRICT BUXAR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAVINDRA PRASAD CHOUDHARY S/O LATE JIYUT RAM CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHARITRAVAN, BUXAR (TOWN), DISTRICT BUXAR. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 24.6.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner files a supplementary affidavit. Keep it on record. Heard Mr.Digvijay Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The 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 14.2.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No.255 of 2004 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ist Class, Buxar. By the said order, the learned Judge has rejected the discharge petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing this petition, submits that in this case though the petitioner was named in 2 the first information report as order giver, the police after investigation did not collect any material showing involvement of this petitioner and thereafter, he was not sent up for trial. In this case, three accused persons were forwarded by the police to face trial. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the entire record, there is nothing to suggest regarding involvement of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after commencement of the trial and examination of the witnesses, a petition was filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter, the petitioner was summoned to face trial and after entering into the appearance at appropriate stage, a petition was filed for discharge and the learned trial court without applying its mind has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, he has prayed to quash the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ist Class, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.255 of 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of argument, files a supplementary affidavit sworn on 23.6.2010. By way of supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for 3 the petitioner has brought on record the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8. P.W.7 was Sub.Inspector of Police, who has recorded fardbeyan of the informant and P.W.8 is also Sub Inspector of Police, who had conducted the investigation of the case. While pressing the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the witnesses have not said anything against this petitioner. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on the record. In this case, the petitioner has brought on record the first information report of Buxar(Town) P.S. Case No.38 of 2002 as Annexure-1. The said first information report was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. As per the fardbeyan of the informant, there is specific allegation against this petitioner that on the order being given by this petitioner other co-accused opened fire 4 and in the occurrence, one person was killed and one person also received fire arm injury. I have also perused the impugned order. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties and examining the materials available on the record, has rejected the discharge petition by assigning a detailed reason. Of course, at the time of rejection of discharge petition as per provision contained in Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no requirement to assign reason, however, in case of discharge, it is the duty of the court to assign reason. It is not in dispute that during trial when materials were collected showing involvement of the petitioner, learned trial court, while exercising power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had summoned the petitioner and the petitioner, in compliance with summon, appeared before the court and at the stage of charge, the discharge petition was filed, which was rejected by the impugned order. In view of materials available on the record particularly in view of specific allegation made in the fardbeyan, which has been exhibited as Ext.2, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to exercise inherent power 5 Md.S. of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioner and, accordingly, the petition stands rejected. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)