IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3295 of 2008 1. SHEO KUMAR PRASAD S/O- LATE BRAHMDEO PRASAD 2. SANJAY KUMAR 3. AJAY KUMAR BOTH SONS OF SHEO KUMAR PRASAD ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA GOSAI TOLA P.S.- PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. LALPARI DEVI, W/O- JANARDAN PRASAD, R/O- MOHALLA GOSAI TOLA, P.S.- PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT- PATNA. For the petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Advocate For the O.P. : Mr. Syed Asger Nazmi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 4 13.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 23.11.2007 whereby their application filed under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. (for short the Code) has been considered and rejected. It appears that initially cognizance was taken on the basis of solemn affirmation of the complainant and evidence of three inquiry witnesses. It appears that three witnesses before charge have been examined. Learned trial court found that there is material on record justifying framing of charge and accordingly, the application was rejected. While assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein have also lodged a Money Suit on 20.7.2004 for recovery of the dues/advance made in favour of the complainant. It is contended that the complainant has appeared in the case and filed her 2 written statement which is on record (Annexure-3/1). It is submitted that the stand of the complainant are at variance so far as execution of document/agreement is concerned. It is thus contended that the learned court below ought to have considered all these aspects of the matter and allowed the application. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party supported the impugned order. Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under: “245. When accused shall be discharged.- If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.” Learned court below has recorded in the order impugned that on the basis of materials available on record, there is sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial . In my view, the petitioners should place all these documents/facts before the Court at the relevant stage of the trial which shall be considered in the light of the evidence brought on record. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to confine itself to the materials brought on record by the evidence of the witnesses. It is not the petitioners’ case that those evidence, if unrebutted, will not secure conviction. This Court, therefore, declines to interfere with the 3 order impugned. The application stands disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )