IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27009 of 2009 Yogendra Sharma Versus State Of Bihar & Anr ------------- 4 8th September,2011 This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing of the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by Sri D.S.Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya in Khizersarai P.S. Case no. 19/2008 corresponding to trial no. 1707/2008 by which he has rejected the petition for discharge and also for quashing of the order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge FTC No. IV, Gaya in Cr. Revision no. 3 of 2009/ 2 of 2009 by which and whereunder he dismissed the revision application filed on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The brief fact which lies to file this petition is that Khizersarai P.S. Case no. 19/2008 was lodged on the basis of written complaint by the Assistant Mining officer against the petitioner and one Nagina Kumar on the allegation that the petitioner and co-accused Nagina Kumar were illegally mining stones without having any lawful authority. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. A petition for discharge was filed on behalf of the petitioner mentioning therein that no case is made out against the petitioner. The learned trial court rejected the above stated discharge petition passing impugned order dated 16.12.2008 against which the petitioner and co-accused Nagina Kumar preferred Cr. Revision no. 3 of 2009/ 2 of 2009 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Gaya, who subsequently, transferred the above stated criminal revision to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge 2 FTC No. IV, Gaya who having heard the parties dismissed the above stated criminal revision passing impugned order dated 31.3.2009. 3. Learned senior counsel Sri Yogesh Chandra Verma, appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order submitting that the learned trial court has passed the impugned order dated 16.12.2008 in mechanical way and the learned trial court has not applied his judicial mind while passing impugned order dated 16.12.2008. It is further contended by him that in impugned order dated 16.12.2008, the learned trial court has not given any reason for rejecting the discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is further contended by him that the learned trial court was required to, at least, examine the facts as stated in the application seeking discharge and also required to briefly mention materials as collected by the police in course of investigation with reference to the case diary but having not done so, the learned trial court has committed grave error of law and similarly, revisional court has also over-looked the aforesaid defect while passing the impugned order dated 31.3.2009 in Cr. Revision no. 3 of 2009/ 2 of 2009. Learned senior counsel Sri Verma, relied on a decision of this court passed in Manoranjan Singh & ano vs. State of Bihar and ano. reported in 2008 (I) PLJR paged 734 wherein, it has been held by this court that petition for discharge should not be simply rejected in a routine and mechanical manner by stating that since the Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences or that in the case diary, there are sufficient evidence for framing of charge, application seeking discharge can not be rejected. 3 4. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was valid lease holder and the seized stones were quarried from his leased area and the Challan was also issued for transporting the same and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the impugned orders and submitted that it is not necessary for the trial court to give reason while rejecting the discharge petition. It is further contended by him that the learned trial court has specifically mentioned in several paragraphs of the case diary in the impugned order dated 16.12.2008 and similarly, Addl. Sessions Judge FTC No. IV, Gaya has dismissed the Cr. Revision no. 3 of 2009/ 2 of 2009 passing a detailed order and Addl. Sessions Judge FTC No. IV, Gaya has referred materials which have come against the petitioner in course of investigation in the impugned order dated 31.3.2009 passed in the above stated criminal revision petition. 6. Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties I have gone through the record as well as decision cited on behalf of the petitioner. It would appear from perusal of the record that tractor bearing registration no. BR 25/6936 laden with stones was seized by the mining officials on 18.3.2008 and subsequently, on the basis of written complaint the above stated Khizersarai P.S. Case no. 19/2008 was registered against the petitioner and driver of the aforesaid tractor under various provisions of Mines Act as well as Indian Penal Code. 7. The stand of the petitioner is that he was granted lease for 4 mining on 12.12.2004 for a period of five years relating to plot no. 176 area one acre situated in village Sahwazpur Police station Khizersarai district Gaya but the Addl. Sessions Judge FTC No. IV, Gaya has observed in Cr. Revision no. 3 of 2009/ 2 of 2009 that the driver of the above stated tractor had disclosed to the informant that he had brought mining stones from Chotiya Pahar and he had regularly been transporting stones from the aforesaid area. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted lease for mining relating to plot no. 176 situated in village Sahwazpur Police station Khizersarai district Gaya whereas the seized stones were mined out from Chhotiya Pahar and the aforesaid area of Chhotiya Pahar was never leased out in favour of the petitioner. 9. No doubt, the learned trial court has only referred some paragraphs of the case diary and came to the conclusion that there were sufficient materials to frame charge against the petitioner and he has not given details of the materials, which have come in paragraphs as referred by the learned trial court but admittedly, revisional court in its order dated 31.3.2009 has specifically mentioned the materials which have come against the petitioner. So, even if the learned trial court has failed to mention the materials available on the case diary against the petitioner in the impugned order dated 16.12.2008, then also, the aforesaid irregularity does not make any difference because the learned revisional court has already mentioned materials which are available on the case diary to frame charge against the petitioner and, therefore, in my view, the decision reported in 2008(I) PLJR 734 is 5 not applicable in the present case because in that case the matter was returned to the court below for passing reasoned order in accordance with law as this court felt some inconvenience and the court was not in a position to judge the correctness of the order passed by the learned trial court in absence of the materials collected by the Investigating officer in course of investigation. So far as the present case is concerned, the order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the revisional court clearly speaks the materials available against the petitioner for framing charge and, therefore, there is no necessity to remit back the present matter to the court below for passing afresh and reasoned order. 10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon decision reported in (1977) 2 Supreme Court Cases page 699 (State of Karnataka & ano vs Muniswamy & others wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court that the High court can in its inherent power quash proceeding on account of insufficiency of evidence as well as to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 11. No doubt, the court can quash a proceeding to prevent the abuse of the process of law or to meet the ends of justice but in the present case, prima facie, there is nothing on record to show that continence of the present proceeding against the petitioner is amount to abuse of the process of law and, therefore, in my view, the decision cited above is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 12. On the basis of the above stated discussions, in my view, this petition does not have any force. Accordingly, this petition stands 6 dismissed on admission stage itself. Shahid ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)