IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54809 of 2007 SHYAM NANDAN SINGH, son of Late-Ram Bhajan Singh, Resident of village-Raghunathpur Basant, Police Station-Kurhani, District- Muzaffarpur. ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Manti Devi, wife of Birendra Kumar Singh, Resident of village- Raghunathpur, Basant, Police Station-Kurhani, District-Muzaffarpur. ……..Opposite Parties. ----------- 03. 16.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.11.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 1996, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, F.T.C. I, Muzaffarpur had rejected the discharge application of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being a police Officer was posted at Malahi police station in the District of Motihari which is 195 K.M. away from the place of occurrence and he was on duty on that date and executing the process of attachment within the jurisdiction of Malahi police station, this plea of alibi was verified on the order of Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur in which it was found that petitioner was on duty within the jurisdiction of Malahi Police station. Hence learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his presence on duty 2 within Malahi P.S. completely nullifies so far as his involvement in the present case is concerned. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that due to the previous enmity petitioner has been roped in the present case. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. and the allegation that he has assaulted the victim has been supported by the witnesses during the investigation and at this stage the alibi of the petitioner can not be considered. After going through the impugned order, it appears that from petitioner’s side several paragraphs of case diary have been quoted wherein alibi has been found true by the investigating agency but neither the counsel for the O.P. nor learned trial Court have referred any specific materials nullifying the stand of the alibi of the petitioner. The provision under Section 227 Cr.P.C. specifically mandates upon the trial Court to consider the records of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, the Court has to consider that whether there is sufficient ground for the proceeding against the accused or not. Though the learned Trial Court has considered the question of alibi as raised on behalf of the petitioner but no specific material has been referred for disbelieving the same. Though in view of the fact that the learned Sessions 3 Judge has recorded that the impugned order has been passed after going through the case diary, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, the petitioner has the liberty to raise all these issues during trial. With these observations, the application stands disposed of. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)