IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15921 of 2008 1. Birendra Singh, Son of Late Babulal Singh 2. Dharmendra Singh, Son of Birendra Singh, both residents of Village- Ranibari, P.S. Darounda, District-Siwan 3. Ram Vilash Yadav, Son of Ram Nath Yadav, resident of Village- Nanda Tola, P.S. Darounda, District-Siwan ------------------- Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 28-06-2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.S.Ehteshamuddin, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 23.1.2008 passed by the learned Fast Track Court-IIIrd , Siwan in Sessions Trial No.394 of 2007 ( arising out of Darounda P.S. Case No.39 of 2005 ). By the said order, learned court has rejected the discharge petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while challenging the order of rejection of discharge petition, submits that though during the investigation no material was collected by the Investigating Agency, the petitioners were falsely chargesheeted and in similar manner, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and even after filing of the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate without examining the materials has rejected the discharge petition in a mechanical manner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a 2 clear-cut case of abuse of the process of the court and for the ends of justice, it is necessary that the order of rejection of discharge petition be set aside. I have also heard learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, who has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record, particularly copy of the F.I.R. and the impugned order. In the F.I.R. there is specific allegation against the petitioners that prior to the occurrence, he had threatened the informant of dire consequences. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that prior to the filing of the present case on the shop of the informant, an attempt was made to take the life of the informant on 22.3.2005 and thereafter on 29.3.2005 in the evening, these petitioners had arrived at the shop of the informant and he was asked/threatened to withdraw his earlier case in which their men were arrested. In the case after registering the F.I.R., it was investigated by the police and chargesheet was submitted for the offences under Sections 436,504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. I have perused the order of rejection of the discharge petition. I do not find any defect in the rejection of the discharge petition. At the stage of discharge, learned Magistrate is only required to see that prima facie case is made out or not. The learned court below, while rejecting the discharge petition, has referred different paragraphs of the case diary. Accordingly, I do not find any material on record warranting this Court to exercise inherent jurisdiction, which is to be 3 exercised in exceptional cases, in favour of the petitioners and the petition stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )