IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.46 of 2008 1. Ashis Rajak, Son of Late Raghubeer Rajak, Resident of Mohalla – Jai Prakash Nagar, P.S. – Jakkanpur, District Patna. 2. Arun Kumar Rajak, Son of Sri Lallu Rajak, Resident of Mohalla – Makhdumpur, P.S. – Beur, District – Patna. 3. Suresh Prasad, Son of Late Gasoram, Resident of Mohalla – Anishabad, P. S. – Gardanibagh, District – Patna. 4. Satyendra Paswan, Son of Baldev Paswan, Resident of Mohalla – Chitkohra, P.S. – Gardanibagh, District – Patna. ……………….. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Ramgulam Sharma, Inspector of Police-cum-In-Charge, Gardanibagh Police Station, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioners :- Sri Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Senior Advocate. Sri Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State :- Sri Reeta Verma, Advocate. 06/ 28.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 05.12.2007 passed in Session Trial No. 546 of 2007 by the Fast Track Court II, Patna. The petitioners were not discharged under the provisions of Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution case as alleged in the ferdbeyan of the informant, Ram Gulam Sharma is that the accused Brajnandan Prasad had come to the Police Station and threatened that he is coming to put on fire to the Police 2 Station and thereafter at about 12:30 P.M about 150 persons came along with the jeep fitted with a mike and were seen coming abusing the police officials, surrounded the police stations, brick bated injuring some of the police personnel. However out of them police identified Brajnandan Prasad and arrested and the rest identified were Arun Kumar, Chandra Shekher, Suresh Prasad, Satyendra Paswan and Ashis Rajak. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that one of the petitioners, petitioner no. 1 Ashis Rajak has neither been arrested and was only the member of the mob and no overt act having been alleged against him. It has further been contended that at the time of consideration of petition for discharge the learned lower court has not considered the material in detail and did not gave any reason for rejecting the petition under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code and has only referred paras of the case diary. It has further been contended that by the impugned order the order has been passed that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made 3 without taking into consideration the injury received by the prosecution party. However, the injury has been pointed out to be simple in nature as mentioned in para 20 and 26 of the case diary. However, Section 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code concerns with the framing of the charge or discharge and the two provision requires to be read in juxtaposition while at the stage of framing of the charge or discharge the law requires that while framing of the charge the mere opinion of the Judge that there is ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence shall prevail. If the trial Court on material on record satisfy that case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame the charge and if upon consideration on the records of the case and hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution considered that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, then he shall discharge the accused but in such situation shall have to record his reason and hence the law provides that the reason has only to be recorded while discharging the accused but the trial court is not required to give reasons if satisfy that there is 4 ground or material for framing of the charge and at the stage of framing of the charge the mere opinion of the Judge that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable by Court of Session is sufficient for framing of the charge and the mere opinion shall prevail. However, at this stage the only requirement is that the learned lower court has applied his mind to the facts and circumstances and satisfies on material available on the record. However, by the impugned order the learned trial court has though consider the facts and has given reference and considered that there was brick bat and injury and examination report of the doctor suggest the injury were found to be simple and superficial and the accused was granted bail. However, at the stage of framing of the charge or consideration of discharge, the court is not required to meticulously examine the facts, however, the court at this stage is only to see whether there is material for proceeding against the accused persons and even a charge can be framed on strong suspicion if the materials on the face value suggest that they are material for proceeding for trial and even on strong suspicion a charge 5 can be framed if the material in the case diary suggest that the offence is made out. Taking the facts or the allegation from the face value of the record material on the case diary, however, there are allegations and material that there was brick batting and mob of 150 persons collected. On this fact this Court satisfied that there are materials in the case diary for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 337, 327 and 353. However, so far the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned there is only allegation of the accused persons brick batted and the injury caused to the accused persons also are only superficial in nature and not on vital part and hence from these material, injury received by the act alleged is only simple and superficial injury and hence it can well be inferred that injury either singly or cumulative effect of all the injuries are not as such to have inflicted with intention to kill and hence the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It appears that learned lower court, has not applied its mind to this aspect of the matter though considered in the impugned order that the doctor has found 6 the injuries simple and superficial and hence all these facts will infer that the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out and hence the impugned order to that effect is modified that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)