CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5200 OF 2002 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- 1. SHASHI RANJAN SINGH . 2. JAI PRAKASH SINGH BOTH SONS OF RAM CHANDRA SINGH. 3. DHRUB SINGH, S/O LATE NARAYAN SINGH. 4. NIRMAL SINGH, S/O TRIBHUWAN SINGH. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE NAYA TOLA BINDAGAON, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ROOP NARAYAN SINGH, S/O LATE NAGINA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAYA TOLA BINDAGAON, P.S. KOILWAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Kumar Uday Singh, Adv. For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 2.2.2002 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No.202 of 2001. By the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of fardbeyan of one Roop Narayan 2 Singh, an F.I.R. vide Koilwar P.S. Case No.118 of 1997 was registered on 14.10.1997. As per the F.I.R. several accused persons had committed an occurrence in which two persons were killed and few received injuries. In the occurrence, fire arms were indiscriminately used. After investigation and submission of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the court of Sessions and at the stage of charge petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners for their discharge and by order dated 2.2.2002, their discharge petition was rejected by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah. 3. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 22.8.2002, while issuing notice to opposite party no.2, this Court directed that in the meanwhile, further proceeding in court below so far petitioners are concerned shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 22.11.2002, Lower Court Record was called for and it was directed that order of stay dated 22.8.2002 shall continue and thereafter, on 26.2.2003, the case was admitted for hearing and it was 3 directed that in the meanwhile, interim order passed on 22.8.2002 shall continue. While admitting, rule was made returnable within four months. On 16.10.2003, order of stay dated 22.8.2002 was ordered to be vacated and thereafter, on 4.11.2003, the case was dismissed for non prosecution. After filing of the restoration, the petition was restored to its original file. 4. Shri Kumar Uday Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of rejection of discharge petition, submits that initially, specific averment was made by the informant regarding participation of the accused persons, but none of the petitioners were named in the F.I.R. It was further submitted that after some time, the investigation in the case was entrusted to the C.I.D. and when the matter was entrusted to C.I.D., name of petitioner no.1 was surfaced as one of the associates and on that very basis, he was made accused. It was submitted that there were no material on record even then the learned Additional Sessions Judge, without assigning any reason, has 4 rejected the discharge petition. It was further submitted that even the son of informant, who was examined during the investigation by the police, had not named either of the petitioners, but due to the reasons best known to the informant’s side, the name of petitioners were incorporated as accused persons. On aforesaid ground, a prayer has been made to set aside the order of rejection of discharge petition. 5. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appears on behalf of the State. She has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record particularly the impugned order, whereby the petition for discharge was rejected. While rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had categorically noticed that even injured witnesses had named the petitioners as assailants. The learned Sessions Judge has also noticed that the witnesses, whose statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of 5 Criminal Procedure, have also supported the prosecution case showing involvement of the petitioners. On the basis of materials available on record, I do not think that while rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate had committed any error. In such serious cases, it was not required by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to pass any favourable order that too, where on the record, there were sufficient materials showing involvement of the petitioners. At the time of charge only requirement is to see as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. If in a situation, like the present case the discharge petition is entertained, I do not think that there would be any case for rejection of discharge petition. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as indicated above, I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has passed a correct and legal order and there is no point to interfere with the same. 8. According, I do not find any merit in the present petition and petition stands rejected. 6 9. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 10. From the records, it appears that Lower Court Record is lying along with the record of the present case. 11. Office is directed to remit back the Lower Court Record. 12. Keeping in view the fact that occurrence had taken place in the year 1997 and matter remained pending for such a long time and even Lower Court Record was pending before this Court as well as keeping in view the fact that in the case, two persons were killed and some received injury, it is desirable to direct the court below to immediately proceed with the case and finalize the charge matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the record along with the order of this case and thereafter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to proceed and conclude the trial within a period of eight months. The concerned Superintendent of Police is directed to render full assistance to the trial court so that the trial may not be deferred due to non 7 production/examination of the prosecution witnesses. 13. With above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below as well as Superintendent of Police, Arrah. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 23.8.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.