IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15829 of 1998 1. DHIRENDRA SINGH, S/O Dashrath Singh 2. Yogendra Singh, S/O Dashrath Singh 3. Sonu Singh S/O Dashrath Singh 4. Dashrath Singh S/O Late Shivdhari Singh 5. Smt. Ram Raji Devi W/O Dashrath Singh 6. Anupama Singh, W/O Dhirendra Singh 7. Meenakshi Kumar D/O Dashrath Singh, All residents of Mohalla Gandhinagar, Pipe and Plastic Factory Road, P.S., Agamkuan, Distt-Patna. ………. Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Murari Singh S/O Munaka Singh residents of Mohalla Gandhinagar, Pipe and Plastic Factory Road, P.S., Agamkuan, Distt-Patna. ………. Opposite Parties. For petitioners:- Mr. Suraj Narain Prasad Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, APP For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, Advocate Mr. S. N. Arya, Advocate ----------- 6. 11-Mar-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2. 2. Petitioners were named as accused in the FIR lodged by Opposite Party No.2. The offences alleged were under Sections 341/342/307/323/34 of the IPC. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet in the said Sultanganj (Agamkuan) P.S. Case No. 143 of 1996. 3. On the basis of such charge-sheet the learned Magistrate took cognizance under the aforesaid 2 Sections of the IPC and committed the case to the court of sessions. Before the trial court i.e., Assistant Sessions Judge, Patnacity in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1997 and Trial No. 4 of 1997 the petition was filed on behalf of accused- petitioners under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 8.7.1998. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is a detailed order running into five pages in which all the relevant facts have been considered and finally the trial court has recorded that it has perused the case diary and after hearing the submissions, it found that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused persons for offence under Section 341/342/323/307/34 of the IPC. It also noticed the argument that on perusal of injury report in respect of injured informant as mentioned in the SOD call book (ortho) there appeared some cutting and over-writing in the name of informant and his father but the learned trial court rightly refrained from evaluating merit and demerit of the documents at the stage of framing of charge. 5. It has been submitted by learned Senior 3 counsel appearing for the petitioners that under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. , before rejecting the petition for discharge the court below was required to give details of the records and the documents and other materials which it claims to have considered before coming to the final conclusion. It was also submitted that in any view of the matter it should have been held by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that there were no materials available on record for framing charge under Section 307/34 of the IPC. 6. On going through the order under challenge, this Court finds that the learned court below has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners with due application of mind and only if he was to allow the prayer for discharge, he would have been required to give more reasons than what is mentioned in the order. For refusing the order of discharge no further reason is required. The learned Court below has rightly refrained from going into the merits of the case. 7. I find no good reasons to interfere in the matter. The issue of charge is always open before the trial court and can be considered even after evidence has been 4 recorded. In the facts of the case, this Court finds no merit in this application, it is accordingly, dismissed. 8. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)