IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47609 of 2007 1. AKHILESHWAR PANDEY, SON OF SRI LAL NARAIN PANDEY 2. POONAM PANDEY, WIFE OF AKHILESHWAR PANDEY, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE RUPANI, PANDEY TOLA, P.S. PATAHI, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. ….PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BAL NARAIN PANDEY, SON OF LATE TAPI PANDEY @ RAGHUBANSH PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RUPANI, P.S. PATAHI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. …OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 06. 22.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 7.9.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana, Motihari in Complaint Case No.C-28 of 2006 corresponding to Tr. No.3083 of 2006, whereby the application seeking discharge has been considered and rejected. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the materials on record, has found and held that there is/are sufficient material(s) on record to proceed with the case. The learned Magistrate has also recorded a finding that microscopic analysis of the fact/allegation is not required to be gone into at the stage of framing of charge(s). He has referred to the deposition of the witnesses on record and thereafter held that materials/evidence(s) on record would justify framing of charge(s). While assailing the said order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a malafide prosecution as earlier to this case, the petitioners had lodged a case against some of his family members including elder brother and Bhabhi. - 2 - The Police found sufficient materials and submitted charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the otherside supports the impugned order. Having considered the submissions of the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the impugned order framing charge merits no interference. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )