IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.707 of 2008 MANIK CHAND PRASAD S/O- HARI PRASAD R/O- VILLAGE JIVDHARA, P.O. + P.S.- PIPARAKOTHI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ----------- 3 15.11.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order impugned dated 3.6.2008, made diverse submissions. It is the stand of the petitioner that the present F.I.R. was lodged to screen the real state of affairs. It is next submitted that the son of the informant is not dead rather he has been kept at a secret place in order to lodge the present case. Counsel further submits that earlier to this, an F.I.R. was lodged by the son of the petitioner against the present accused persons which is pending trial. On these submissions, it is submitted that learned trial Court erred in refusing to discharge them under the impugned order. I have perused the materials on record including the impugned order. Learned Court below, referring to different materials available on record, has come to a conclusion that there appears to be sufficient material for the present to proceed with the trial by framing the charges. Learned trial Court has refused to consider the materials produced by the petitioner before it showing false implication on the ground that at this stage the same cannot be looked into. In my view, learned trial Court has adopted a correct approach considering the jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner. 2 This Court, therefore, does not find any patent illegality in the order. Petitioner would be well advised to agitate/raise all these issues before the learned trial Court at the trial which shall be considered in accordance with law uninfluenced by the present order. The application is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )