IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14736 of 2007 1. RAJEEB KUMAR SINGH ,son of sri Krishna Mohan Singh, resident of Village- + Town-Jaynagar,Bazar Samiti, P.S. Jaynagar, District-Madhubani 2. Binod Kumar Sharma, Son of Late Mahendra Sharma, Station Road, Jaynagar, P.S. Jaynagar, District-Madhubani 3. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Son of Late Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Usrahi, P.S. Deodha, District-Madhubani 4. Akhilesh Singh, son of Ram Satya Singh, resident of Village Barhi, P.S. Jaynagar, District-Madhubani 5. Pramod Purbey, Son of Late Lakshman Purbey, Town-Jaynagar, Main Road, P.S. Jaynagar, District-Madhubani 6. Raju Kumar,a Son of Prem Kumar Yadav, resident of Village- Pithwa Tola, P.S. Jaynagar, District-Madhubani 7. Kishan Kumar Mahto, Son of Sukhari Mahto, resident of Village-Jaynagar, Patha Gaddi Chowk, P.S. Jaynagar, District- Madhubani 8. Anil Kumar Roy, Son of Hari Narayan Roy, resident of Mohalla-Postal Park, Road No.3, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankar Bagh, District-Patna 9. Prabhat Ranjan @ Guddu, Son of Ram Nath Singh, resident of Mohalla-Postal Park, Main Road, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna 10. Rambilash Mandal, Son of Raghunandan Mandal, resident of Village- Inarwa Deodha, P.S. Deodha , District-Madhubani 11. Badri Ram, Son of Bihari Ram, resident of Village-Dullipatti, P.S. Jaynagar, District-Madhubani ----------------------- Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------------ Opp.Party ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Kumar Shekhar, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. -------- O R D E R This application at the behest of the eleven petitioners is for the quashing of the order dated 15.1.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani , in Sessions Trial No.952 of 2006 arising out of Madhubani ( Town ) P.S. Case No.237 of 2003 whereby he has been pleased to reject the discharge petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners. - 2 - The submissions on behalf of the petitioners is that they are not named in the F.I.R. and after completion of investigation the police submitted a chargesheet only against the F.I.R. named accused and not against the petitioners which only goes to show that no evidence whatsoever, whether direct or indirect, was available against them to indicate their involvement in the crime. It has further been submitted that these petitioners have been falsely implicated as accused after a lapse of almost 2 ½ years solely on the basis of the confessional statement of one of the F.I.R. named accused , Anand Prakash, given before the police on 5.1.2006 upon his arrest on 4.1.2006 in connection with another case. Assailing the impugned order, it was sought to be submitted that in this background the Sessions Court’s order was unwarranted and that too without assigning any reason. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned trial judge was of the opinion that there were “some material” to hold that the petitioners were connected with the alleged incident. This naturally brings one to consider the scope and ambit of the provision of Section 227 Cr.P.C. It is clear from the provision that the Sessions Court has the power to discharge an accused if after perusing the record and hearing the parties he comes to the conclusion, for reasons to be recorded, that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The object of the provisions which require the Sessions Judge to record his reasons is to enable the Superior Court to examine the correctness of the reasons for which the Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The High Court, therefore, is entitled to go into the reasons given by the Sessions Judge in - 3 - support of his order and to determine for itself whether the order is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 482 Cr.P.C. provides for the same. In the exercise of this wholesome power the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice required that the proceeding ought to be quashed. So far the present case is concerned , admittedly the Sessions Court in disposing of the petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners herein by the impugned order appears to have taken note of the fact that the submission advanced by the petitioner was that the allegations against the petitioners is totally false and concocted as there is no charge against the petitioners because there is no material against them in the whole of the case diary ,the chargesheet as also the order taking cognizance. However, it appears to have accepted the submissions of the learned A.P.P. and has observed , “ that on perusal of the F.I.R., chargesheet and the case diary it is clear that the petitioners are named accused of the chargesheet and I find sufficient materials in the case diary for framing charges against the accused petitioners.” The reasonings given by the Sessions court in the impugned order unfortunately are not sufficient so as to satisfy the requirement of the expression “for reasons to be recorded in writing” as occurring in Section 227 Cr.P.C. . In refusing to discharge the petitioners, the court was required to assign “the reasons” to enable the superior court to examine the correctness of the reasons assigned. The bald statement that “there is sufficient material in the case diary” is not enough. The learned Judge could at least have referred - 4 - to the relevant paragraphs in the case diary which in his opinion were relevant and sufficient materials for framing charge. The provision of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. which are to be read in juxtaposition with each other is not an empty formality but is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose and a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or prosecution or even to satisfy personal or political rivalry. The ends of justice are definitely higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to law made by the legislature. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, I am unable to uphold the impugned order which is accordingly set aside. The case is remitted back to the learned Sessions court in seisin of the trial to decide afresh the petition of the petitioners filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, as has been stated above by recording reasons for passing of the order. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the April 10th ,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.