IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53393 of 2007 1.ARVIND KUMAR THAKUR son of late Baliram Thakur, resident of village-Madhubani, P.S.Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur. 2.Kanu Kumari wife of Yogendra Prasad Rai, Resident of village-Narkatia, P.S.-Lattipur, District-Bhagalpur …… ……..Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Lalan Prasad Thakur son of late Jagarnath Prasad Thakur, resident of village-Patahi Chowk, P.S.-Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur. ……. …….Opp.Parties. ----------- 4. 30.9.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 10.9.2007 passed by Mr.Santosh Kumar Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarur in G.R. No.93 of 2006/Trial No.2532 of 2007 arising out of Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No.8 of 2006. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of written report submitted by one Lalan Prasad Thakur a first information report vide Town P.S. Case No.8 of 2006 was registered on 13.1.2006 for the offences under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that the land of the informant was sold by petitioner no.2 in favour of petitioner no.1. It was disclosed in the first information report that on the land in question the petitioner no.1 was allowed to remain as a tenant since last several years. However, he stopped making 2 payment of the rent. Thereafter, the informant approached petitioner no.1 whereupon the petitioner no.1 abused the informant and also assaulted him. After registering the first information report, the police investigated the case and, thereafter, chargesheet was submitted. On 24.11.2006 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. At the stage of charge, a petition for discharge was filed by both the petitioners which was rejected by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, the petitioners approached this court by filing the present petition. Mr. Satyavrat Verma, Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order, has argued that without any material the petitioners were made accused and charge-sheeted. It has been submitted that the land in question was lying in the share of petitioner no.2 and, as such, she had rightly sold the land in question to petitioner no.1 and by way of executing the sale deed she had committed no offence. It has been submitted that the informant for the purpose of declaring deed as void has filed a separate case vide Title Suit No.47 of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case which has been filed for declaring the sale deed void is going to be decided very soon. In the event the sale deed is approved by the competent court, certainly there shall be no case against the petitioners. It has been submitted that the dispute was purely a dispute of civil nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that order of rejection of discharge petition is liable to be set aside on the 3 ground that it is a non-speaking order. It has been submitted that as per the requirement of law while deciding a discharge petition, it was mandatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to assign reason. In support of his stand learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2008(1) PLJR 734 (Manoranjan Singh and another Vs. State of Bihar and another). On the aforesaid ground it has been prayed to quash the order of rejection of discharge petition. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. In this case a counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, I have also perused the material available on the record, particularly the impugned order. Prima facie the court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate while rejecting the discharge petition has committed no error. As per the provisions under section 227, 239 or 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the requirement for assigning a detail reason is available where the court considers to allow a discharge petition. Meaning thereby that for the purpose of rejection of discharge petition, there is no requirement to assign a detailed reason. The learned Magistrate, while rejecting the discharge petition has perused the materials available on record i.e. the case diary. In this case after through investigation, the police submitted chargesheet and thereafter cognizance order was passed on 24.11.2006 and at the stage of charge after perusing the 4 discharge petition as well as materials available on the record and hearing the parties has passed the impugned order. I do not find any defect in the order impugned. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)