IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12177 of 2008 1. JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV S/O LATE ANANT PRASAD YADAV 2. SHAMBHU YADAV 3. KAILASH YADAV 4. GULAB YADAV 5. VISHESHWAR YADAV 6. SHAILENDRA PRASAD YADAV 7. RAMAKANT RAMAN @ RAM YADAV (ALL SONS OF SATYANARAIN YADAV) ---- PETITIONERS. Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ---- OPP. PARTY ----------- 04 26.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 25.07.2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Birpur in Raghopur P.S. Case no. 66 of 1998, G.R. Case no. 351 of 1998, whereby their application seeking discharge under Section 380 of the Penal Code has been rejected and charges have been directed to be framed under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Section 380 of the Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 147,148,323,380 and 504 of the Penal Code which ignited investigation. Upon conclusion of investigation the police submitted final form/report wherein the allegation punishable under diverse Sections of Penal Code excepting Section 380 of the Penal Code was/were found to have been substantiated. This statement has been made based on final form/report (Annexure-1). It is the contention of the petitioners 2 that learned Magistrate overlooking that aspect of the matter passed the impugned order for framing of charge(s) under diverse Sections of Penal Code including Section 380 of the Penal Code. It appears that learned Court below has perused the materials on record and has recorded a finding that there is sufficient evidence on record constituting the offence under Section 380 of the Penal Code as well. Petitioners want deletion of the charge punishable under Section 380 of the Penal Code. Whether he is tried for other offence(s) excepting Section 380 of the Penal Code or including Section 380 of the Penal Code the forum would be same. The prosecution has to prove to the satisfaction of the Court the charges framed against the petitioners. If there is no evidence on record the petitioners will be acquitted of the said charge. At the stage of framing charge, the Court has only to satisfy as to whether there is sufficient evidence on record or not. Considering that aspect of the matter, this Court declines to interfere with the order impugned. However, it is made explicit that the present order shall not prejudice the Court in any manner while trying the case for the charge(s) framed against the petitioners. The application is disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)