IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.436 of 2008 1. Narayan Jha, son of Late Maheshwar Jha, resident of village- gosariganj, P.S. Gopalpur, Dist.- Bhagalpur at present posted as Super Selection Grade, Correspondence Clerk, in the office of the General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer, Central Electric Supply Area, Patna, Serpantine Road, P.S. Kotwali, Dist-Patna. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Lalan Pd. Singh S/o late Ram Swarup Singh, R/o village Kurtha, P.S. Shiv Sagar, District Rohtas at present Cashier Vidyut Awar Pramandal Gramin Khestra, Katihar. --- Opp.Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Bose, Sr. Advocate. Mrs. Ratna Das, Advocate. For the State : Mr. G.P. Jaisawal, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Subodh Kr. Sinha, Advocate. ----------- 7 22.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, state and informant (opposite party no.2.). Petitioner is an accused of Katihar town P.S. Case no. 529 of 2004 (giving rise to Sessions Trial no. 149 of 2006). He is aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2008, passed by the learned Court below whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short ‘Code’) seeking discharge was considered and rejected. F.I.R. in the present case was admittedly lodged against unknown. As per allegation in the F.I.R., while the informant was returning home on a rickshaw, he was shot at by two accused persons riding a motorcycle. In the concluding paragraph of the F.I.R. a motive has been assigned to the petitioner. It appears from the materials on record that the 2 petitioner as well as the opposite party no.2 were working in the Electricity office. Prior to the present occurrence, there was enmity between them leading to filing of application(s) by both the parties. The police investigated the case. Having noticed the fact that both the parties were at loggers head and there was/were some materials to indicate the complicity of the petitioner, he was charge sheeted under diverse Sections including Section 120B of the Penal Code. Consequently cognizance was taken. The matter was thereafter committed to the Court of session where the present application seeking discharge was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the sustainability of the order submits that there is no legal evidence available on record that may justify the trial of the petitioner. It is contended that the case which was subsequently lodged against the petitioner by the functionaries of the department has been taken into consideration to justify the passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 (Annexure-3). This Court finds from the said application that it has been stated therein that there is/are circumstantial evidence relating to the dispute inter se between the informant and the petitioner which alone would not justify his trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied upon the following judgments:- (i) 1979 CRI. L. J. 154(SC) (Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & another) 3 (ii) 2007(1) PLJR 336 (Uday Singh @ Uday Shankar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. ) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is only required to satisfy itself as to whether there is /are sufficient evidence/material on record against the petitioner. It is next highlighted that the petitioner is facing charge under Section 120B of the Penal Code as well. The scope of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar versus Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018. This is what the Supreme Court has observed in the said judgment :- “……But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused……” Learned trial Court, on perusal of the materials on record in the impugned order, has recorded that there is sufficient materials against the accused to frame the charge. Said finding cannot be said to be perverse. This Court finds no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)