IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.18909 of 2007 ***** Uma Shanker Singh son of Late Ramdeo Singh, resident of village-Renua, P.S. Hussainganj, District-Siwan. …. …. Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar …. …. Opposite party ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate Mr. Yashwant Kumar Chaman, Advocate --------------- 7. 12.5.2009. Power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been invoked for quashing the order dated 9.3.2007 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 281 of 2006, which has arisen out of Maharajganj P.S. Case No.14/2000. By the impugned order the prayer made for discharge of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands rejected and a date was fixed for framing of charge against him. The origin of the present criminal proceeding was lodging of an F.I.R. by the informant on 17.2.2000, which is Maharajganj P.S. Case No.14/2000. The allegation is that on 17.2.2000, the election for the Bihar Assembly was going on. Informant’s brother, namely, Damodar Singh, was contesting the assembly election as an independent candidate. On the date of the incident his brother, namely, Bharat Singh (deceased) was sitting in the election office when he received information about some bogus voting at a particular booth, subsequently, he heard a bomb explosion at about 11.30 and he decided to proceed to the place. The - 2 - informant reached the place on a jeep and his brother, Bharat Singh, followed him on a motorcycle. Thereafter it is alleged that some boy had sustained bomb injury and had been rushed to Maharajganj State Hospital they decided to visit the hospital, gave Rs.500/- for treatment to the boy and when they were leaving the premises, petitioner, Uma Shankar Singh, who was a candidate of Samta Party in the assembly election, his son, Jitendra Swami accompanied with some unknown persons arrived at the place variously armed. On the order of Uma Shankar Singh, Jitendra Swami pulled down Bharat Singh (deceased) from the motorcycle, pushed him into a car and drove him away to an unknown destination. Initially the F.I.R. in question was lodged under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code but since body of Bharat Singh was found soon thereafter the police also instituted case under Section 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The matter, it seems, raised a lot of heat and dust. After certain amount of pulling strings here and there, matter which was initially investigated by the police was later transferred to the C.I.D. The informant, Vijay Singh, getting unnerved by the decision of the State Government decided to challenge the said decision of handing over the investigation to the C.I.D. by filing a Criminal Writ bearing Cr. W.J.C.No.288/2000. The matter came to be heard and disposed of vide order dated 9.4.2001, which is quoted hereinbelow: - “It appears that fight is in between the two political heavy weight and perhaps for that reason there is allegation of partisan of police and CID by each other in respect of rival political heavy weight. In such circumstances, when already investigation has been done or is to be done or completed by the CID and when no stay order passed by this Hon’ble Court then better course is that the - 3 - investigation report as contemplated under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be filed both by the general Police and also by the CID and it must be left to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned to act over those two reports. In that way, it is hereby directed to the CID and the Superintendent of Police, Siwan to submit their reports to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate within a period of two months from this date and on such reports being submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall proceed according to law after consideration of both the reports of case diaries. This petition is disposed of accordingly.” By virtue of the High Court’s order investigation continued both by the C.I.D. and the police and they decided to file a final form against the petitioner though some other accused were charge-sheeted. The Court is not surprised for above development looking at the high profile status of the petitioner and the background under which the High Court came to pass the order in the criminal writ. Be that as it may the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after examining the material in the case- diary differing with the final report submitted by the police took cognizance against the petitioner, his son, Jitendra Swami and some other accused persons. The petitioner in this background decided to file an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge from the case. By a long narration in the petition effort has been made to show how improbable the case is and how there are many gaping holes in the allegation, therefore, not discharging the petitioner or asking him to face trial would be an abuse of the process of the Court. - 4 - The petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was taken-up by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan and the impugned order dated 9.3.2007 has come to be passed. Since the same has gone against the interest of the petitioner he has decided to challenge the same in the present quashing application. Submissions have been made at the Bar that the impugned order suffers from various legal infirmity. The Court ought to have considered the fact that the case had a political background and rivalry because the informant’s brother was a candidate against the petitioner. The improbability of the case and the circumstance under which final form came to be submitted both by the police as well as the C.I.D. was good enough ground for the Court to discharge him. In support thereof certain decisions, such as the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, (1996) 9 SCC 766 and the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 366, came to be relied upon. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, however, submits based on the judicial pronouncements in the cases of Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P., 2006(2) PLJR (S.C.) 327; Bisheshwar Tamoli v. State of Bihar, 2006(2) PLJR 219 and State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005(1) PLJR (S.C.) 417., that the order passed by the learned trial Court is wholly in order and there is no legal infirmity. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner and his son have a reputation of using muscle and fire power to subjugate their opponents in election and it is through their clout that they did not allow the investigation to go beyond a point. He has tried every - 5 - means fair or foul to derail the same. It is after much effort that the Court below based on material has been able to bring the petitioner before the Court of law to answer for the charge. The present application is yet another effort to get out of the rigors of law when there are adequate materials which are not only based on the allegation made in the F.I.R. but also statements of other witnesses. The materials have been dealt with in detail in the impugned order dated 9.3.2007. The Court has gone through the impugned order and from the same it emerges that all the submissions which have been made at the Bar before this High Court was also raised before the trial Court. The said submissions had been taken into consideration. The trial Court dealt with the same and based on the evidence which had emerged in the investigation has rendered its opinion by coming to a conclusion that there is sufficiency of material available on the record, which required the petitioner Uma Shankar Singh to face trial under Sections 364, 302, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with 27 of the Arms Act along with other co-accused. The Court has no hesitation in recording that looking at the high profile nature of the case, the personalities involved, the learned trial Court has been very careful in dealing with every aspect of the matter. Rather a detailed kind of order has come to be passed, which on perusal cannot be found to be in violation of any law or principles in this regard. The order being totally in consonance with the law and the principles on such issue requires no interference. The submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner stands answered by the trial Court itself - 6 - and this Court is not inclined to discuss all those issues afresh, moreso, when there are no infirmities to be dealt with. The application has no merit. It is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)