IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.22559 of 2008 1. Baleshwar Prasad Sharma, son of Late Ram Sewak Singh. 2. Akhileshwar Sharma, son of Sri Baleshwar Prasad Sharma. 3. Kameshwar Singh, son of Late Mohan Singh. 4. Umesh Singh, son of Late Jamuna Singh. 5. Uday Sharma, son of Late Jamuna Singh. 6. Suryakant Sharma, son of Kameshwar Singh. All of Village-Abhranchak, P.S. Naubatpur, District- Patna. 7. Binay Sharma, son of Late Lakshman Singh of village- Charra, P.S. Naubatpur, District-Patna. ………………………………………………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Ram Pravesh Singh, son of Late Beni Singh, resident of village-Abrhanchak, P.S. Naubatpur, District- Patna. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 3. 17.10.2011. Heard Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh No.1, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing the order dated 27.5.2008 passed by the court of Sri Lalta Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur, in Complaint Case No.451(C) of 2006, whereby the petition of the accused-petitioners, filed under 2 Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge them, has been rejected. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that from perusal of the depositions of the witnesses as contained in Annexure-‘6’ series to this application, no offence under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused- petitioners, but the Judicial Magistrate, has rejected illegally the petition filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners to discharge them under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that in this case charges have already been framed by the trial court and almost all the witnesses have been examined. It appears from the impugned order dated 27.5.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.451(C) of 2006 that on going through the depositions of the three witnesses, examined before the charge, the learned Judicial Magistrate, has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient material against the accused-petitioners for framing the charge and, accordingly, rejected the petition filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners 3 under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge them. I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 27.5.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur, in Complaint Case No.451(C) of 2006, to interfere with the same in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)