IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16048 of 2009 DILIP KUMAR RAI @ DILIP RAI, SON OF LADDULAL RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – MORDIVA, P.S. – MUFFASIL, DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR. ------ PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BAIDHNATH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF BISHNUDEO PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – GAUSHAPUR, P.S. – SALSINGSARAI, DISTRICT – SAMSASTIPUR, INFORMANT OF DALSINGSARAI, P.S. CASE NO. 326 OF 2007. ------ OPPOSITE PARTIES. For the petitioner : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr. Amarendra Prasad, APP. ***** 02. 15.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 16.01.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. IVth, Samastipur, passed in S.T. No. 236/2008/191/2008 arising out of Dalsingsarai P.S. Case No. 326 of 2007, G.R. No. 740 of 2007 refusing the prayer of the petitioner made under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge. The court below has refused the prayer simply on the ground that the petitioner - 2 - took no step against order of cognizance. The order appears completely non-speaking. The trial court at the time of hearing on the point of charge especially on the prayer of the accused seeking discharge is to deal with the materials produced on behalf of the prosecution to support their charge and accordingly pass appropriate order. Prayer of discharge cannot be refused on the ground that the petitioner did not invoke the jurisdiction of higher court against the order taking cognizance. The impugned order needs reconsideration after hearing the parties afresh, but, at the same time, considering the lapse of more than two years, and the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to make this court aware whether any witness has been examined in this case or not, if in the trial no witness is examined as yet, the court below shall hear again the petitioner and pass appropriate order taking into consideration the materials available in the case diary. - 3 - With the above observations and liberty, this application stands disposed of at the admission stage itself. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below through Fax at the cost of petitioner. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)