IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1209 of 2007 Rameshwar Prasad son of Late Jamadar Prasad, permanent resident of Village Mohadipur, P.S. Majhauliya, Dist. West Champaran. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Nezamuddin Mian son of Mohd. Suleman Mian, R/o vill. Banswariya, P.S. Bettiah Town, Dist. West Champaran. -----Opp.Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma,Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadayaya, APP 3 23.06.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12th June 2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bettiah (West Champaran) in trial no. 1704 of 2007, whereby application filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’), to discharge him from the case has been considered and rejected. Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:- “239. When accused shall be discharged.-If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.” Petitioner during the relevant time was functioning as ‘Nazir’ of Bettiah Raj which is under the Court of Wards. On 16.05.2003, auction of different orchards including Chakkerbagh was held, and the complainant was adjudged as the highest bidder. As per the terms of the bid notice, he was obliged to deposit a sum 2 of Rs. five thousand at the time of bidding. It appears that subsequently a complaint bearing complaint case no. 1491C of 2003 was filed against the complainant/informant under Sections 379, 323, 406, 420, and 387 of the Penal Code alleging therein that without depositing the entire bid amount as subsequently approved by the appropriate authority, the complainant/informant had maliciously and forcibly plucked all the fruits causing loss to the Bettiah Raj. That matter remained pending enquiry. In the meanwhile the present complaint was lodged against the petitioner herein alleging therein that the complainant/informant had initially deposited a sum of Rs. ten thousand at the time of bid and subsequently he demanded return of the same amount as he was no longer interested in the bid. The same was refused by the present petitioner. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to different official documents, submits that the present prosecution lodged by the complainant/informant is wholly malafide. It is contended that there is absolutely no legal material against the petitioner which may provide a ground for proceeding further in the matter by way of trial. In his submission, the trial in the present case would be sheer abuse of the process of the Court. It is next highlighted that the learned Court below has mainly confined itself to the issue(s) as to whether the petitioner is a public servant, and in that capacity he is protected under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is next submitted that once an application for discharge in terms of Section 239 of the 3 Cr. P.C. is filed a duty is cast upon the Court to consider all the materials available on record and thereafter come to a conclusion whether the materials on record are groundless or not. This Court, on perusal of the impugned order, finds that the learned trial Court has confined only on two aspects of the matter and has not considered the other aspects of the matter in order to come to a just conclusion. Keeping in focus all these aspects of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the present order dated 12.06.2007, passed in Trial No. 1704 of 2007(arising out of Complaint case no. 1891/( c) of 2003 & Bettiah Town P.S. Case no. 174 of 2004, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bettiah, West Champaran and remit the case back to the learned Court below for fresh consideration, and disposal in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)