IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9175 of 2011 Deonandan Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 2 23.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Additional P.P. Also gone through the order impugned. Earlier the prayer of the petitioner for discharge was rejected vide order dated 17.07.2009 against which Cr. Revision No.771 of 2009 was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Patna which was allowed on 05.03.2010 (Annexure-4) observing therein that in the changed circumstances which the investigating authority had also verified as per para-53 of the case diary, no offence of cheating/ misrepresentation is made out and so, while setting aside the order impugned, the matter was remanded to the learned lower court to proceed afresh. Meanwhile, as it appears charge had already been framed against the petitioner and so the learned Presiding Officer shown her helplessness in proceeding with the 2 direction given by the learned lower court. The act of the learned Presiding Officer appears to be ridiculous because of the fact that any order passed by the superior court at any stage of the proceeding has to be obeyed. Whether charge has been framed or not is irrelevant issue. Let this matter be considered through other angle. The prayer of the petitioner for discharge was rejected vide order dated 17.07.2009 and in aforesaid background the subsequent step as provided under Section 240 of the Cr.P.C. where under charge is framed, was followed. When the order dated 17.07.2009 stood annulled by the superior court then in that event there was no question of survival of procedure prescribed under Section 240 of the Cr.P.C. In any view of the matter, the order impugned does not survive, accordingly is set aside. Consequent thereupon, petition is allowed. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)