CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13275 OF 2000 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ KAMLESH MISHRA son of Sri Braj Vansh Mishra, of village:Chanidih, P.S.-Paharpur, Dist.;East Champaran. ………… ………..Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Ashok Kumar Sinha, son of Madhav Sharan Prasad of Mohalla-Kamanath Nagar, P.S.-Bettiah, Dist.-West Champaran ……….. …….Opp. Parties. -------- For the petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar No.1 For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey. A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR --------- Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 3.4.2000 passed by Sri B.K.Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, in Trial No.922 of 1998/549 of 2000 arising out of Nautan P.S.Case No.114 of 1997 registered for the offence under section 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said order the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Mr.Sanjeev Kumar No.1, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, submits that the learned Magistrate while rejecting the discharge petition has not assigned any reason. It was submitted that, while hearing on discharge petition, the learned Magistrate has only considered that at the time of cognizance the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had examined the case diary, 2 charge sheet and all materials available on the record and thereafter order of cognizance was passed. The learned Magistrate has further observed that the petitioner had never filed any revision petition against the order of cognizance. Accordingly, without assigning any reason the learned Magistrate has rejected discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was further submitted that in the present case save and except confessional statement of one of accused there was no material on record to show the complicity of the petitioner. It was submitted that confession recorded by the police is not evidence in the eye of law. On the aforesaid strength, he prayed that order of rejection of the discharge petition may be rejected. 3. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 4. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record. This court is of the view that while rejecting the discharge petition there is no requirement to assign any reason. However, if the concerned court considers to discharge the accused either under section 227, 239 or 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is mandatory on his part to assign reason and ground for discharging the accused. Meaning thereby that in a criminal proceeding trial is a rule and discharge is exception. Keeping in view the nature of allegation as well as materials on record I am of the view that while rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate has committed no 3 Patna High Court The 21st July,2010. Md.S.NAFR. error. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 6. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 18.12.2000 stands automatically vacated. 7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)