IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.48813 of 2007 1. RAMASHISH SAHANI S/o Late Sahadeo Sahani 2. Binda Sahani S/o Ramashish Sahani Both residents of village Kothiya Hareram, P.S. Mehsi, District East Champaran. . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Thingur Bhagat S/o Paltu Bhagat, resident of village Jugauliya Tola Machhahan, P.S. Madhuban, District East Champaran. . . . . Opposite parties. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Kishore Prasad, Advocate For the Opp. Party no.2 : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Adv. For the State : Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ----------- 4/ 04.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State as well as opposite party no.2. The instant application has been filed against the order dated 02.08.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Motihari, East Champaran in Cr. Rev. No. 574/2 / 2005/06 whereby he affirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikarahana at Motihari rejecting the petition of discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that opposite party no. 2 filed a case under Section 365, 368 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and others for abduction of one Rajesh Kumar, aged about 14 years. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the petitioners and others to face trial. However, pursuant to subsequent investigation the police found the case not to be true and submitted final form in favour of accused persons vide Report no. 2 of 05 dated 15.04.2005. In the aforesaid report, the police find that Rajesh Kumar died an accidental - 2 - death. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that there are sufficient materials in the First Information Report against the petitioners for framing of charge under Section 365 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that though in subsequent investigation, the police has found the case to be false but some materials are there on the record which shows that there is sufficient material for framing of charge. The submissions made by the petitioners may be of same aid to him during the trial but the same is not enough by itself for making a ground for their discharge, as such I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the discharge petition. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)