IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.2887 of 2010 1. LALLAN SINGH, 2. Vijay Singh, both sons of Late Jamadar Singh, R/o Village – Pakari Mohammad, P.S. – Amnour, Distt. – Saran at Chapra and 3. Rajendra Dubey, S/o late Rameshwar Dubey, R/o Village – Pakari Mohammad, P.S. Amnour, Distt. – Saran at Chapra ………………………... Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. Bikram Prasad, S/o Dharamdeo Singh, R/o Village – Pakari Mohammad, P.S. – Amnour, Distt – Saran at Chapra ………………………………... Opp. Parties. ----------- For the petitioners:- Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Advocate. ----------- 2. 27.01.2010. In this application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in S.T. No. 558/09 arising out of Amnour P.S. Case No. 07/2009 whereby the learned trial Judge has declined to entertain the prayer of the petitioners made under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein a discharge in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code was sought for. 2. It is contented in the petition that on the 2 basis of a complaint made by one Vikrama Prasad Singh Keshari at Amnour Police Station, a criminal action was set in motion and carrying out investigation the investigating agency laid the charge-sheet before the concerned court in respect of the aforesaid offences. It is urged that if the allegations are taken into consideration in entirety no offence is made out against the present petitioners. It is put forth that the land disputes have been going on between the families of the informant and the petitioners and various litigations have been filed by the parties against each other. In essence, it is put forth that the petitioners have been falsely implicated due to enmity. 3. It is also propounded that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that no offence is made out under Sections 307 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 4. To appreciate the aforesaid submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners I have carefully perused the order passed by the learned trial Judge. On scrutiny of the same it is manifest that he has scanned the materials on record and has expressed the 3 view that a case for discharge is not made out. That apart, what has been really canvassed before the court below as well as before this Court is in the realm of trial and, hence, there cannot be an order of discharge. 5. In view of the aforesaid analysis I perceive no merit in this application and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed in limine. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. )