IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.57122 of 2007 1. UMESH PRASAD @ UMESH SINGH, SON OF LATE JAMUNA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF BIHARIKUNJ, MAKHANIA KUAN, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT – PATNA. 2. JAI PRAKASH VERMA, SON OF LATE GEETA PRASAD SINGH, RESIENT OF BIHARIKUNJ, MAKHANIA KUAN, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT – PATNA. ……….. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. PUSHPA BHARDWAJ, SAFE WAY GAS AGENCY, RAJA RADHIKA PAMAN PATH, KRISHNA KUNJ, THAN – S.K.PURI, DISTT. PATNA. ………… OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 04/ 20.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a petition for quashing of the order dated 10.12.2007 passed by Sri S.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Patna in G.R. No. 2532 of 2003 by which the petition filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The prosecution case as alleged that the accused no. 1 and 2 without permission of the complainant, who is the sole owner of the agency, took loan and purchased a truck and further took the complainant in their confidence and breach of the communication the loan taken and further did not deposit the amount sent by draft of Rs.60,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that they have filed several ownership’s documents 2 in their defence and that this document were not considered, which shows bonafidey of the petitioners. However, at the stage of 239 of the Cr.P.C the trial court has no jurisdiction to consider the documents, which are the defence of the accused and not brought during investigation of the case and at the stage of framing of charge or discharge of petition the court has only to satisfy whether there is sufficient material to proceed with trial. However, on perusal of the impugned order and the record, a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that while rejecting the petition under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. learned Magistrate did not consider the various defence in the case diary. However, the law is settled that at the stage of framing of the charge, the court is not required to give reason for framing of the charge. However, reason is only is to require if the accused is discharged and hence, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)