IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17852 of 2008 1. GARIB NATH SON OF LATE BISHWANATH PRASAD 2. BINOD KUMAR SON OF LATE BISHWANATH PRASAD. 3. ASHOK KUMAR SON OF LATE BISHWANATH PRASAD ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – RAGHUNATHPUR, POLICE STATION BARHAMPUR, DISTRICT BUXAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 03. 05.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Through this application, petitioners has assailed the order dated 15th of November 2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 734 of 1989, whereby the prayer of the petitioners for discharge has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that virtually the matter has arisen out of differences with regard to the partition of property. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the first information report is improbable, consequently, the petitioners who being the accused in the case deserves to be discharged. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for discharge deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the State submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet and the cognizance of the alleged offences were taken on 21st of September 1987 and the case was committed for trial 2 to the court of sessions on 17th of July 1989. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned order and submits that the truthfulness or otherwise of the charges would be a matter of trial. Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that the court below has considered the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge and after considering the relevant materials on the record including the case diary and the injury report came to the conclusion that there is sufficient materials on the record for proceeding with the case against the petitioners and accordingly rejected the petition for discharge. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the allegations made in the first information report is improbable and as such, the petitioners ought to have been discharged and consequently the impugned order deserves to be set aside, this court is unable to accept such submissions. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous application is dismissed. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)