IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.51711 of 2008 1. Mani Chauhan, son of Nathuni Chauhan. 2. Ranjit Chauhan, son of Mani Chauhan. 3. Badri Chauhan, son of Late Narayan Chauhan. 4. Murari Chauhan, son of Ram Kishun Chauhan. 5. Rameshwar Chauhan, son of Ram Kishun Chauhan. 6. Vijay Chauhan, son of Mani Chauhan. All residents of village-Beldriya, Mahaddipur, P.S. Bihar, District-Nalanda. ………………………………………………Petitioners. Versus The State Of Bihar…………………..Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- 2. 25.10.2011. Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha No.1, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the State. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the order dated 25.10.2008 passed by the court of Sri S.K. Chaudhary, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biharsharif, in Bihar P.S. Case No.374 of 2007, whereby the application of the accused-petitioners filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge has been rejected. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that it is itself clear from the F.I.R. that a 2 title suit is going on between the informant and accused- petitioners and due to that reason the informant has filed this false case. It has also been submitted that the learned Magistrate did not consider the aforesaid fact and illegally rejected the application of the accused-petitioners filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. From perusal of the impugned order dated 25.10.2008, it appears that the learned Magistrate on going through the case diary and record of the case arrived at the finding that the cognizance of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 379, 325 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code has already been taken against the accused-petitioners and there is sufficient material in paragrphs-3, 7, 8, 21 and 6 of the case diary to frame the charge under the aforesaid Sections against the accused-petitioners. At the time of framing of charge or hearing the petition of the accused for discharge, the Magistrate/court is not required to look into the defence of the accused rather the Magistrate/court is only required to see whether on perusal of the case diary, there is sufficient material to frame the charge or not. 3 As such, the impugned order dated 25.10.2008 passed by the court of Sri S.K. Chaudhary, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Biharsharif, in Bihar P.S. Case No.374 of 2007, does not suffer from any illegality to interfere with the same in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)