Criminal Miscellaneous No.11074 OF 1998 ---- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ----- 1.SHEO PUJAN PANDEY 2.Tribhuwan Pandey , Both sons of late Rambaran Pandey 3.Shailendra Pandey @ Shailendra Kumar Pandey son of Tribhuwan Pandey 4.Mukesh Kumar Pandey son of Sheo Pujan Pandey Residents of village-Manpura, P.S.-Baruraj, Dist.-Muzaffarpur. ---- ---- Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Parbati Devi wife of Bijali Thakur, resident of village-Manpura, P.S.-Baruraj, Dist.-Muzaffarpur. ---- ---Opposite party. ------ For the petitioners: Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey For the State: Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR --------- Rakesh Kumar,J. It is second round of litigation by the petitioners before this court. Earlier the petitioners had approached this court against the order of rejection of revision petition which was preferred against the order of cognizance. The said petition was dismissed by this court vide order dated 8.8.1997 passed in Cr.Misc. No.13833 of 1997. While dismissing the said petition this court had given specific direction which is as follows: “In case it is argued at the stage of framing of the charge that no case is made out, the court below will dispose of the same by a reasoned order.” 2. This time the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.5.1998 whereby Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur had rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of 2 the petitioner under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Allegation in the present case was that the complainant, who is wife of one Bijali Thakur, filed a complainant case in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, which was registered as Complaint Case No.704 of 1993. Subsequently, the said complaint petition was transferred for its investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, first information report vide Town P.S. Case No.55 of 1994 dated 1.2.1994 was registered for the offences under sections 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. In the first information report it was alleged that the petitioners by way of pursuing her husband had got some land registered in their favour. She alleged that though there was partition and some lands which were in the share of the informant were also transferred to the petitioners by her husband. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the allegation was false, during investigation, no material could be collected by the police and, as such, police submitted final form without sending the petitioners to face trial. The learned Magistrate differing with the final report had taken cognizance of the offence under sections 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the petitioners had earlier challenged the order of cognizance. However, they did not get any favourable order as has been indicated above. While their petition was rejected on 8.8.1997 vide Cr.Misc. No.13883 of 3 1997, this court gave specific direction that in case it is argued at the stage of framing of charge that no case was made out, the court below would dispose of the same by a reasoned order, but despite the specific direction of this court, the learned Magistrate in mechanical manner had passed the impugned order and rejected the discharge petition of these petitioners. He further submits that there was no material on record and on this score alone the order rejecting the discharge petition is liable to be rejected. The impugned order is liable to be rejected on the ground of non-compliance of the direction of this court. The order is cryptic and non-speaking. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order is in contravention of the direction of this court. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the petition and he submits that at the stage of discharge there is no requirement to assign a detail reason and on account of non-assigning of reason the order may not be set aside. He has argued that power of this court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is very limited and it is to be exercised in exceptional cases. 6. From the records it appears that after rejection of the discharge petition, the petitioners have approached this court by the present petition and by order dated 26.6.1998 while issuing notice to opposite party no.2 in admission matter, this court directed that meanwhile, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed. Record shows that though notice was sent to opposite party no.2, she refused to accept the same and, 4 accordingly, it was considered as valid service and thereafter on 30.9.1999 this case was admitted for hearing and it was directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed and, as such, present proceeding remained pending before this court for about 12 years. 7. Without going into the merit of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside only on the ground that the learned Magistrate has not complied with the direction of this court which was issued on 8.8.1997 in Cr.Misc.No.13833 of 1997. Accordingly, in view of assigning no reason, the impugned order is set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court, The 22nd March, 2010. Md.S./NAFR ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)