IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42821 of 2007 Rajiv Kumar Sharan, Son of Nawal Kishore Sharan, resident of G- 103/ P.C. Colony, P.S. Kankarbagh, District/Town –Patna ----------- Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04 28-09-2010 Heard Sri Hare Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 18.7.2007 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge-XI, Patna in Sessions Trial No.444 of 1996. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition dated 3.3.2006 filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge. Short fact of the case is that an F.I.R. was lodged for the offences under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in which subsequently Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code was added. In the F.I.R. the petitioner was named as one of the accused. After investigation the police exonerated the petitioner and chargesheet was submitted only in respect of two accused persons. Thereafter, in this case cognizance order was passed against accused persons, who were forwarded by the police and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. At the stage of evidence, after the materials were brought on record suggesting involvement of this petitioner, the learned Sessions under Section 319 of the Code of 2 Criminal Procedure summoned the petitioner to face the trial along with other accused persons. The petitioner subsequently appeared before the trial court and filed a petition on 3.3.2006 for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Sessions Judge by its order dated 18.7.2007 has rejected the same. Aggrieved with the order dated 18.7.2007, whereby the discharge petition of the petitioner was rejected, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. Sri Hare Krishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, has raised several points. The main point for challenging the order, which has been taken by Sri Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Sessions Judge was not authorized to summon the petitioner, since the petitioner was already discharge by the learned Magistrate. It has also been argued that in view of proviso to Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without giving notice to the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge was not entitled to summon the petitioner even under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that before summoning the petitioner, it was required on the part of the learned court below to be satisfied that the materials were sufficient for conviction of the petitioner. On this very point, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 55 (SC) (Md. Shafi Vs.Md. Rafique ). Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically referred to paragraph 13 of the said Judgment . According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in absence of any materials 3 suggesting conviction of the petitioner, learned Sessions Judge has committed error, while summoning the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 1991 (1) PLJR 41(SC) (Sohan Lal & Ors Vs.State of Rajasthan). This Judgment has referred to strengthen his argument in respect of application of proviso to Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a Judgment reported in 1986 PLJR 123 (Full Bench); Md. Ali Vs.State of Bihar. He has specifically referred to paragraph 33 of the said Judgment. It has been argued that even the Full Bench of this Court in Md. Ali’s case (Supra) has held that without commitment, no court can exercise power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed to quash the impugned order. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It has been argued that after being satisfied with the materials on record showing involvement of the petitioner, which were brought during the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly summoned the petitioner. According to Smt. Pandey, learned counsel for the State, the order impugned itself indicates that even the victim girl, who subsequently succumbed to the injuries, had made statement indicating involvement of the petitioner. Besides this, other three witnesses during the evidence have supported the case of the prosecution and, as such, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner. So far as the case laws cited on behalf of the petitioner is 4 concerned, I am of the view that this argument is not available to the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner has not at all challenged the order, whereby he was summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From the order impugned, it appears that in compliance with the order passed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner had already appeared before the concerned court. In absence of any challenge to the order passed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would not be appropriate to make any comment by this Court at this stage. The petitioner had filed a petition for discharge, which has been rejected by the learned Sesssions Judge. From the impugned order, it is evident that there were sufficient materials indicating involvement of the petitioner, in which wife of the brother of the petitioner as well as her baby were sprinkled K.Oil and they were put on fire. It has been submitted by Sri Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the child has survived. However, the wife of petitioner’s brother , who was informant, subsequently died. In view of the impugned order, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has passed the valid and legal order. It is not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Time without number, it has been held that for the purpose of framing charge, even strong suspicion is enough. However, in the present case, there are sufficient materials against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Keeping in view the fact that the matter remained pending before this Court for a long period, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that the case may come 5 to its logical end without any further delay. With the above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)