IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32666 of 2008 1. KAMALUDDIN @ MUNNA @ MD.KAMALUDDIN 2. TAJUDDIN @ BHOLA @ MD. TAJUDDIN 3. GOHAR @ GOHAR HUSSAIN 4. SHAKEEL AHMAD @ BABLOO. ---PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. AFTAB ALAM --OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 04 20.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I Chapra in Sessions Trial no. 287 of 2006 (State Vrs. Md. Kalamuddin and ors.). An F.I.R. was lodged on 13.05.2005 by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that on the date of occurrence at 5.30 p.m. a meeting was underway. Several persons had assembled in the said meeting. A dispute had arisen over payment to Imam and management of the mosque. A verbal dual ensued. Tajuddin @ Bhola @ Md. Tajuddin petitioner no.2 caught hold of victim whereafter Gohar @ Gohar Hussain and Shakeel Ahmad @ Bablu ( petitioner nos. 3 and 4) started assaulting the victim by means of fists and slaps. Due to these severe beatings at the hands of the accuseds the victim died. Police took up investigation wherein it was found that there was sufficient evidence on record justifying trial of the petitioners and accordingly on 01.07.2005 charge sheet was submitted leading to order taking cognizance. It appears that the D.I.G. subsequently made supervision of the case and having 2 noticed the incongruency in the prosecution case and the post mortem report came to the conclusion that no case against the petitioners was made out. A further police report was submitted on 31.05.2007. The petitioners filed an application under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C. seeking discharge on the ground that in the subsequent investigation report including the supervision note of D.I.G. no case against the petitioners was found to have been made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners criticized the impugned order. According to him continuance of the proceeding shall be sheer misuse of the process of the Court. A status report was called for in this case earlier. The same is on record at Flag-X. It appears the trial has already commenced and one witness on behalf of the prosecution has been examined Learned A.P.P. on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It is contended that learned trial Court has perused the entire materials on record and has come to the conclusion that there are sufficient materials against the petitioners to frame charge(s). It is further contended that further supervision by the D.I.G. was not made after obtaining permission of the Court. I have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that learned Magistrate in the light of submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners perused the materials reflecting from the police report and thereafter came to the conclusion that they established presence of sufficient materials against them to proceed with the 3 trial. Having found the same, the application was rejected. This Court does not find any illegality in the order considering the jurisdiction of the Court invoked by the petitioners. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)