IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4734 of 2008 SIYARAM ROUT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4. 7.5.2010 Dr. Amrendra Kumar No.1, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has agitated before me that it was wrongly held by the learned trial Judge that offence under Section 3(i)(x) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of atrocities) Act was made out on facts. It was contended with reference to the complaint petition that the offence appears otherwise. The Court feels that the orders of the nature as has been sought to be quashed by the present petition are passed keeping in mind the import of ‘sufficient ground for proceeding’ which appears in the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. either in the negative or in the affirmative terms and those are always to be understood to mean that if there is grave suspicion that the accused persons might have committed an offence which could be exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, then the court of Sessions could 2 not discharge them. The reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge with reference to certain witnesses appears legitimately recorded and in that view, I do not find any merit in the present petition. However, the case being on complaint petition, it is expected that the learned trial Judge proceeds with the trial with ado. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)