IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12842 of 2008 Lal Kumar Yadav, Son of Late Hari Lal Yadav, resident of Village & P.S.Uda Kishanganj, District- Madhepura ------- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Radhe Shyam Prasad, Advocate For the State : Dr.Maya Nand Jha, A.P.P. ---------- 03 25-06-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The sole 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 10.1.2008 passed by Sri Umesh Chandra Upadhyaya, Addl.Sessions Judge, F.T.C.4th , Madhepura in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2004 . By the said order, the learned trial Judge has rejected the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While pressing the present petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that neither in the F.I.R. nor during the entire investigation, anything has been brought on record suggesting commission of any offence by this petition and without any material on record, the petitioner was made accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically argued that in absence of any material, the learned court below was not required to reject the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 10.1.2008 has wrongly been passed. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that if the prosecution was not in a position to satisfy the Court that there were sufficient materials for convicting the petitioner, the learned 2 court below was duty bound to discharge the petitioner. It was argued that in such a situation, the Court has committed grave error while rejecting the discharge petition and directing to fix the date for framing of the charges. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 1977 SCC( Crl.) 404 ; State of Karnatka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors . While referring to L.Muniswamy’s case ( Supra) , learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that if the court is satisfied that allowing the prosecution amounts to abuse of the process of the Court, this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is competent to quash the entire prosecution. It was argued that it is a fit case, in which this Court can exercise inherent power in favour of the petitioner and quash the impugned order of rejection of the discharge petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that it was a case of snake biting and in this case murder has not been proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner directly or indirectly had participated in the murder of the daughter of the informant and the petitioner was not at all related to the family of the in- laws of the deceased. He was the Mukhiya of the village.On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 10.1.2008 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge,F.T.C.4th , Madhepura in Sessions Trial No.89 of 2004. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf 3 of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the material available on record. On perusal of the F.I.R., i.e. Kishanganj P.S. Case No.115 of 2002 ( Annexure-1 to the petition), it appears that the informant Amrit Mahto has gave his fardbeyan before the police disclosing therein that his daughter, namely, Suchitra Devi was married to one Manoj Mahto in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals and thereafter the husband of the daughter of the informant and other family members of her in-laws started torturing the daughter of the informant with an object to extract dowry. Subsequently, the informant came to know that the husband of his daughter administered some intoxicant by way of injecting her and thereafter killed her by way of twisting her neck and thereafter he kept the dead body in a lock room. In the meanwhile, the petitioner who was the Mukhiya of the village arrived there. It has been disclosed in the fardbeyan of the informant that he heard that his son-in-law after some conversation had given Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner and, thereafter with the help of other accused persons, the son-in-law of the informant, namely, Manoj Mahto burnt the dead body of the daughter of the informant to ashes . On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant , an F.I.R. vide Kishanganj P.S. Case No.115 of 2002 was registered for the offences under Section 304(B)/ 201/120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned court below , while rejecting the discharge petition , has examined the materials available on record and thereafter by assigning a detailed 4 reason has rejected the same. So far the question of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, there is no dispute that in a case of abuse of the process of the Court , this power can be invoked to prevent such abuse . There is also no dispute in respect of proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At this stage, it is appropriate to mention that in a case reported in 1996 (3) Cr.L.J. 2448; State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even in a case of strong suspicion, charges can be framed against the accused persons. To substantiate this proposition, it would be better to quote paragraph 32 of the Judgment of Som Nath Thapa’s case ( Supra): “32.The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.” Besides this, in the present case, even in the F.I.R. there was specific material against the petitioner to show that he had participated and played the role in commission of offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. This observation has been recorded by this Court 5 only for the purpose of deciding the present case. In view of the facts and circumstances as indicated above, I am of the considered opinion that while rejecting the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, the learned court below has committed no error . Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the petition stands rejected. During the course of argument, on the query made by this Court , learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that after rejection of discharge petition, no change has occurred in the case before the court below, since the petitioner has informed the court below that he had filed the present petition before this Court. Keeping in view the fact that the discharge petition was rejected long back on 10.1.2008, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously and conclude the same without granting any unnecessary adjournment. With the above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )