Patna High Court - Orders
Md. Irshad vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 23 March, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.43142 of 2009
======================================================
Md. Irshad, Son of Wahab Master @ Abdul Wahab, Resident of village
Balthi Musahari, P.S. Bochaha, District Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rambali, Son of Rajendra Rai, Resident of village Dharampur, P.S.
Bochaha, District Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 23-03-2012Heard Shri Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nand Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
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 5.8.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No.379 of 2008 (arising out of Bochaha P.S. Case No.10 of 2008) registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by which learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur has rejected the 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43142 of 2009 (3) dt.23-03-2012 2/7 petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submits that the order does not give any reason for rejecting the petition. He further submits that the impugned order is a glaring case of non application of mind of the court and on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his argument, learned Senior Counsel has heavily relied on a Supreme Court judgment reported in 2011(1)PLJR 33 (Sajjan Kumar Vs. C.B.I. as well as 20092009(2) BBCJ 285 (SC) (Renuka Vs. State of Karnataka and another). It was submitted that the apex court has also held that at the time of passing order on discharge petition, the court is required to assign reason and apply mind.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43142 of 2009 (3) dt.23-03-2012 3/7 submits that the F.I.R. in the case was registered on 30.1.2008 in which the petitioner was named as sole accused. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet and cognizance order was passed. At the stage of charge, petition was filed, which has been rejected by the trial court by order dated 5.8.2009. He submits that perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the learned court below, while rejecting the petition, had examined the materials available on record as well as in the case diary and thereafter, petition for discharged was rejected.
I have also perused the impugned order. The learned Judge, while rejecting the petition, had categorically stated that he had examined record and case diary and number of paragraphs of the case diary and thereafter, he has passed the impugned order. Under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no doubt that 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43142 of 2009 (3) dt.23-03-2012 4/7 if a court is going to discharge an accused, in that event, he is required to assign brief reason. Meaning thereby that if the court is satisfied on the basis of materials on record to show a prima facie case, the concerned court is not required to assign reason. In Sajjan Kumar's case (Supra), the apex court has reiterated the law. Even in Sajjan Kumar's case (Supra), the apex court has not held that while dismissing the discharge petition, detailed reason is required to be passed. Moreover, Sajjan Kumar's case (Supra) was related to an occurrence of Sikh Riots, which occurred in the year 1984. In the said case, the Delhi Police, after investigation, had submitted closure report and subsequently, as per the order of Government of India, matter was referred to the C.B.I. and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted. Even in Sajjan Kumar's case (Supra), it was not held that assigning detailed reason was necessary. So 5 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43142 of 2009 (3) dt.23-03-2012 5/7 far as Renuka's case (Supra) is concerned, in that case, the apex court was considering provision under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is under consideration. For just decision in the matter, it would be appropriate to quote Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as follows :
"227. Discharge.- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."6 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43142 of 2009 (3) dt.23-03-2012
6/7
On perusal of the aforesaid
statutory provision, one can come to the
conclusion that if the trial court considers to discharge an accused, then reason is necessary to be assigned. Meaning thereby that if the court is prima facie satisfied with the case, then in that event, a detailed reason is not required to be assigned, while rejecting the discharge petition.
Moreover, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case in which the petitioner alone was named in the F.I.R. as an accused for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the fact that the learned court below, while hearing the discharge petition, had minutely examined the case diary and he had referred to number of the case diary and thereafter, he had rejected the petition, the court is of the opinion that the order passed by the court below requires no interference. The 7 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43142 of 2009 (3) dt.23-03-2012 7/7 petition stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of this
petition, it is necessary to direct the
court below to proceed with the case
expeditiously so that the trial may come to its logical end without un-necessary delay.
It is made clear that dismissal of this petition may not prejudice the court below while proceeding with the case.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) N.H./-