IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.29109 of 2009 1. Amresh Pandey, S/o Anup Lal Pandey 2. Prem Chand Pandey, S/o Late Gauri Shankar Pandey 3. Sanjay Pandey @ Surendra Azad, S/o Amresh Pandy 4. Chitranjan Pandey @ Chitranjan Kumar Pandey, S/o Prem Chand Pandey 5. Kapal Mahto, S/o Late Bihari Mahto 6. Shiv Ranjan Pandey @ Shiva Chandra Pandey, S/o Late Gouri Shankar Pandey All residents of village-Chaita, P.S. Angarghat and District- Samastipur. ……………….. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sudhir Kumar Pandey, S/o Ram Shobit Pandey, resident of village-Chaita, P.S. Angarghat and District-Samastipur ……. Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 2 12-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state on the point of admission. Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 04-03- 2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 322 of 2008 whereby and whereunder, he rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners. It is gathered from the record that on the basis of written report of Sudhir Kumar Pandey, Angarghat P.S. Case No. 59 of 2000 under Sections-302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners. The aforesaid case was investigated by the police and after investigation, the police submitted final form finding the accusation untrue but 2 the informant filed a Protest Petition which was subsequently converted into Complaint Case and, thereafter, in course of inquiry, some witnesses were examined and learned court below took the cognizance for the offences and the case of petitioners was committed to the court of Sessions. A discharge petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners but learned Sessions Judge rejected the aforesaid discharge petition passing the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in course of inquiry, the witnesses have supported only part story of the prosecution case and none has claimed to have seen the actual killing of the deceased. It is also contended by him that earlier the petitioners had come before this court for quashing the cognizance order by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44283 of 2006 but the aforesaid Cr. Misc. case was dismissed with a liberty to the petitioners to raise their points at the time of framing of the charge and in the light of aforesaid observation of this court, the petitioners filed a petition and raised almost all their points before the learned Sessions Judge but he did not pay any heed to the materials available on the record and rejected the discharge petition of the petitioners. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the state submits that in course of inquiry, the witnesses have supported the prosecution case which is evident from Annexure-4 series to this petition and, therefore, learned 3 Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners. Considering the above-said submissions of the parties as well as materials available on the record, I find that Annexure-4 series reveals that witnesses have stated about the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime and it is well settled principle of law that at the time of framing of charge, the meticulous examination of prosecution evidence is not essential and a charge can be framed even on the basis of slightest material available on the record. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that this petition does not have any merit and, accordingly, this petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)