IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55024 of 2007 KAMAL SAHANI, Son of Late Jhauli Sahani, resident of Mohalla- Rahamganj, P.S. Laheria Sarai, District- Darbhanga...Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Shiv Kumar Sahni, Son of Late Thakko Sahani, resident of Mohalla -Bakerganj, Laheriasarai, P.S. Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga. 3. Raj Kumar Sahni, Son of Late Thakko Sahni, resident of Bakerganj, P.S.Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga.......................Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S. L. N. Das and D. Mallick, Advocates. For O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 : M/S. Jagdish Prasad No.1 and Rakesh Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. --------- 3. 16.04.2010. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.09.2007 passed by the court of Fast Track Court No.III, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 2007 whereby the learned court below did not frame charge under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and charges have been framed against the accused persons (opposite party nos. 2 and 3) under Sections 427 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code. The case proceeded on the basis of Laheriasarai P. S. Case No. 15 of 1998 registered under Sections 436, 429, 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation though found the case true but has not sent up the accused persons for trial as accusation against - 2 - them found false. Subsequently, the final form was accepted and the matter proceeded on protest and the protest petition was also dismissed which was challenged by the petitioner in revision and the revisional court directed to consider the matter of cognizance afresh and consequently the cognizance was taken under Sections 436, 427 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance order challenged by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 which was dismissed as withdrawn. On filing petition for discharge by opposite party nos. 2 and 3, the learned court below came to the conclusion that there are contradictions between the enquiry witnesses and the S.A. of the complainant and there are also contradictory version with regard to the fire being taken place in the residential house or in the cattle shade. Hence by the impugned order the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had been discharged under Section 436 and the charges were framed under Sections 427 and 429 which are triable by the Magistrate. Without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order - 3 - dated 24.09.2007 passed by the learned Fast Track Court No. III, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 2007 which has been passed after considering all materials on record. However, the petitioner is at liberty to produce the evidences before the trial court with regard to his contention i.e., making out of the case under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned trial court will consider such evidences as the hands of the trial court are not fettered in committing the case to court of Sessions while exercising the powers under Section 323 Cr.P.C. With these observations, this application is disposed off. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)