IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52338 of 2007 1. VIJAY SAHANI @ VIJAI SAHANI, S/o Rewati Sahani 2. Om Narayan Sahani, S/o Ramcharitar Sahani 3. Hardev Sahani, S/o Radha Sahani 4. Krishna Sahani, S/o Lakhan Sahani 5. Nagina Sahani, S/o Lakhan Sahani 6. Bindeshwari Sahani, S/o Lakhan Sahani 7. Surendra Sahani, S/o Lakhan Sahani All are residents of village Bahuari, P.S. Lakhura, District – East Champaran ….. Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Raj Kishore Sahani, S/o Late Shiv Baran Sahani, R/o village Bahuari, P.S. Lakhura, District East Champaran. ….. Opp. Parties. ----------- 3 5.2.2009 Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar No. III, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State . Although informant, O.P. No. 2, was duly served with notice and has filed his vakalatnama yet at the time of hearing of this application he is conspicuous by his absence. Through this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.7.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 603 of 2005 arising out of Muffasil (Lakhura)P.S. Case No. 84 of 2004, whereby he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge under section 227 Cr.P.C.. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had earlier to the institution of the Mufassil (Lakhura) P.S. Case No. 84 of 2004 filed a complaint being No. 283 of 2004 against the informant of this case and to save his skin the instant case has been - 2 - filed. It has further been submitted that the learned trial court while rejecting the prayer of the petitioners ought to have taken into the account the fact that the petitioners had filed the case earlier in time. It appears from the perusal of the impugned order that the learned Magistrate on perusal of the records and case diary came to the finding that there were sufficient evidence against this petitioners to proceed under section 306, 210 and 120B IPC and although initially the case has been registered under section 302/301/120B I.P.C. he has proceeded to direct the petitioners to be present physically for framing of charges under section 306, 201, 120B I.P.C. It is by now well settled that section 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. ; have to be read in juxtaposition with each other. At the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 and 228 of the Code. At that stage the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused if the matter - 3 - remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leaves the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Gainful reference in this connection may be placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (AIR 1977 SC 2018). In view of the categoric decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)