IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46100 of 2007 SUNIL YADAV, SON OF SRI RAM CHANDRA PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-THAKURGANJ(DHIBRI), P.S. THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT-KISHANGANJ……………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR…………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate and Raju Giri, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- O R D E R The petitioner, one of the F.I.R. named accused of Sessions Trial No.496 of 2006 arising out of Thakurganj P.S. Case No.65 of 2005, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 13.11.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Kishanganj, whereby the petition of the petitioner with a prayer for discharging him under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The prosecution case, in brief, as made out in the written report filed by one Gopal Kumar Agrawal, is that he is a member of the Zila Parishad and he with his family members and P.S.O. had gone to attend a marriage ceremony at Digambar Jain Bhawan and while returning at around 9.30 P.M. as they came out on the road to get into their car, accused Navin Kumar Yadav arrived in his car, got down from it and from his rifle fired two shots in the air and seeing the informant he pointed his rifle towards him and taunted the P.S.O. to save the informant whereupon the P.S.O. covering the informant requested Navin not to joke with the fire arms. It is said that Navin - 2 - started abusing the P.S.O. whereupon the P.S.O. took out his pistol. In the meanwhile, the people attending the marriage ceremony attracted by the sound of firing and the canard being hurled by Navin assembled and took the informant indoors for safety reasons. It is further said that the Officer Incharge of Galgalia P.S. who was also attending the marriage ceremony eventually pacified matters and made the informant sit in the car but Navin followed the car for some distance pointing his rifle and also kept hurling abuses. It is alleged that co-accused, Sunil Yadav, was also sitting in the car provoking Navin. On the basis of the said written report , Thakurganj P.S. Case No.65 of 2005 under Sections 341, 353, 504, 307/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 Arms Act was registered and after due investigation a chargesheet under Sections 341, 307 and 504/34 I.P.C. was submitted and the learned Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 341, 353, 307 and 504/34 I.P.C. Subsequently, the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. Before the Sessions Court a petition was filed on 14.8.2006 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on behalf of both the accused with a prayer therein to discharge them on the ground that no case whatsoever was made out against the accused persons on the basis of the materials available on record. A rejoinder thereto was filed by the prosecution with a prayer to reject the same. The learned Sessions Court rejected the same on the grounds that several witnesses in course of the investigation had supported the prosecution case and the allegations - 3 - made therein as also the fact that the I.O. had seized the rifle alongwith 11 cartridges from one Bipin Kumar Yadav who possessed a license for the same and the name of Navin Kumar Yadav was mentioned therein as a retainer and that out of the 20 cartridges issued to the license holder only 11 cartridges were produced and there was no satisfactory answer for the remaining 9 missing cartridges. Admittedly, the allegation against the petitioner herein is of his being a co-passenger in Navin Yadav’s car, while chasing the informant’s car. No other allegation appears to have been made against the petitioner albeit of committing any overt act. There is also no averment or material to show that the petitioner at the relevant time was armed with any weapon. As would appear from the impugned order of the learned Sessions Court the rifle was seized from one Bipin Kumar Yadav who had necessary license for the same. Further, the rejection order does not indicate the reasons why the court was satisfied to arrive at a finding that the offences whereunder cognizance was taken had also been made out, so far as the petitioner is concerned. In the State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (AIR 1977 SC 2018) the Supreme Court held that wherefrom the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, the accused should be discharged. Then again in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 766, the Supreme Court observed that when the Judge is fairly certain that - 4 - there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date and that in such a situation it is advisable to truncate the proceeding at the stage of Section 227 Cr.P.C. As stated above, from the written report submitted by the informant and on perusal of the impugned order, there does not appear any material which would make the petitioner herein liable for any of the offences whereunder the cognizance had been taken. The prosecution of the petitioner, in the aforesaid circumstances, would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the impugned order, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby set aside and the application is allowed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 1st day of July, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.