IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24750 of 2009 JITENDRA SWAMI SON OF SRI UMA SHANKAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RENUA, P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, DISTRICT SIWAN. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. VIJAY SINGH SON OF LATE JANG BAHADUR SINGH RESIDNT OF VILLAGE NIGRAHAWAN, P.S. MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT SIWAN. ----------- 6 03/03/2010 Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Informant. An earlier quashing application which was numbered as Criminal Misc. No. 3705 of 2008 came to be dismissed on 20.04.2009 because the learned counsel for the petitioner was not willing to argue and press the application and insisted for adjournment which the Court was not inclined to grant looking at the stay order which was in operation over a period of time. The application was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner merrily accepted the order and departed from the Court. The second application has now been filed stating that the order dated 20.04.2009 was neither an order on merits nor an order of dismissal for non prosecution. Learned counsel representing the informant informs the - 2 - Court that on the ratio laid down in the case of Lakshmi Sinha and another Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2004(4) PLJR., 126, second quashing application is not maintainable. The given facts of the case above on which proposition of law was laid down by the Division Bench is some what at variance with the facts of the present case. The Court would like to give benefit of doubt to the petitioner since the Court did not categorically record in its order dated 20.4.2009 that the application was dismissed for non prosecution or on the merits of the case. From the contents of the order it was more like an order of dismissal due to non prosecution. The Court, therefore, has allowed the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner to address the issue on merits of the matter. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 2.8.2007 which is an order of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan passed in Session Trial No. 281 of 2006. The origin of the case was institution of Maharajganj P.S. Case No.14 of 2000. The petitioner is one of the accused persons charged with various offences including kidnapping and murder. The case has a long chequered history. All these facts need not - 3 - be recorded in detail. The records and the impugned order speak for itself. The issue for consideration is whether the impugned order which is an order passed on an application filed by the petitioner under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is within the parameters of law or it suffers from certain vice which requires interference. No doubt, section 227 of the Code gives certain right to an accused to seek discharge based on the material and evidence which has come during investigation. If the needle of suspicion does not point towards the accused and the material and evidence does not decisively point towards his guilt, an accused may seek discharge. But such an exercise is a very preliminary exercise and no detailed kind of order discussing every aspect of evidence need be passed in an order on a petition under section 227 of the Code. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are certain very vital facts which belie the charge and points towards the innocence of the petitioner. If those vital aspects have not been taken into consideration in the impugned order, then obviously error has been committed by the trial court. Parameters under which applications under section 227 of the - 4 - Code need to be dealt with are reflected by a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar and others reported in (2008) 14 SCC, 1. The proposition of law is not in dispute. Question is whether the order impugned dated 2.8.2007 suffers from any illegality or vice which requires interference. The Court has gone through the detailed order which has come to be recorded by the trial court. It has taken into consideration the parameters of exercise of such power as well as the detailed evidence which has come during investigation against the petitioner. There is a categorical material, prima facie, to establish that the complicity of the petitioner was there so far as the crime in question is concerned. With the weighty materials on record as evidence, the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that atleast the petitioner does not fall in that category of an accused who could be given the benefit of discharge under section 227 of the Code. It is not for the trial court to hold a mini trial at the stage of discharge and a full fledged trial after rejection of the petition for discharge under section 227 of Code. In the opinion of the Court the trial court has been very fair and open in considering every aspect of the - 5 - submissions made before it and has met the points ably. This application has no merit. It is dismissed. The trial court will be well advised to expedite the trial since the matter is a decade old. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)