Patna High Court - Orders
Yogendra Choudhary & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 12 March, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar
Bench: Rakesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.24541 of 2008
======================================================
1. Shiv Bahadur Choudhary son of Sudama Choudhary
2. Chunmun Yadav, Son of Saryu Yadav
3. Dadan Yadav, Son of Nathuni Yadav
4. Sumeshwar Yadav, Son of Shri Bhagawan Yadav
All residents of Village- Khairhi, P.S. Koransarai, District-
Buxar
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party
======================================================
With
Criminal Miscellaneous No.16884 of 2008
======================================================
1. Yogendra Choudhary son of Sudama Choudhary
2. Preetam Yadav, Son of Bhagawan Yadav
3. Shri Bhagawan Yadav, Son of Ram Prasad Yadav
4. Dudhnath Yadav, Son of Ram Prasad Yadav
5. Nathuni Yadav, Son of Shiv Bachchan Yadav
All residents of Village- Khairhi, P.S. Koran Sarai, District-Buxar
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance:
(In Cr.Misc. No.24541 of 2008)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tara Sinha
Mr. Rohit Kumar
Mr. Kavita Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
(In Cr.Misc. No.16884 of 2008)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Tara Sinha
Mr. Rohit Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
-----------------
3 12-03-2012Heard both Cr. Misc. No.24541 of 2008 and Cr.Misc.No.16884 of 2008. In both the petitions, which have been 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24541 of 2008 (3) dt.12-03-2012 2/5 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, order under challenge is the same i.e. order dated 18.03.2008 passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.319 of 2007, arising out of Dumraon P.S. Case No.101 of 2007, registered for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and, as such, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
The petitioners are accused for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code in a case, in which son of the informant was done to death. The petitioners in both the cases were named as accused in the F.I.R. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet and after commitment at the stage of charge, a petition for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed, which has been rejected by the impugned order i.e. 18.03.2008 by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Buxar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case, there were no eye witnesses and only on suspicion, the petitioners were implicated as accused. The reason for implication of the petitioners in the present case was several disputes relating to election of Vidyalaya Samiti. Several grounds were taken in assailing the impugned order. In support of his contention, learned 3 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24541 of 2008 (3) dt.12-03-2012 3/5 counsel for the petitioners has relied on Apex Court Judgment reported in (2011) 3 SCC 351 (Harsendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley & Ors.). Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied on Apex Court Judgment reported in (2011)11 SCC 259 ( Asmathunnisa Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.) and submits that in absence of any evidence, learned Sessions Judge was required to allow the discharge petition. However, contrary to the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition for discharge in a mechanical manner.
Sri (Dr.) Mayanand Jha, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submits that at the stage of charge, only requirement is to see as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. He further submits that while hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is not required to conduct mini trial. He submits that the learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the discharge petition , has dealt with the materials collected during the investigation in its order and by assigning detailed reason , he has rejected the petition for discharge, which requires no interference.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record, particularly the 4 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24541 of 2008 (3) dt.12-03-2012 4/5 impugned order. After going through the impugned order, the Court is satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge, while dismissing the discharge petition, has committed no error. Time without number, it has already been held that if there is reason to believe involvement of a person on strong suspicion or even presumption, the Court can proceed with the case and may not discharge an accused. It has further been held that only requirement at the time of hearing on charge is to see as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. In present case, the petitioners were named in the F.I.R. and after investigation, chargesheet was submitted. The learned Sessions Judge has referred number of paragraphs of the case diary and, as such, the Court is of the opinion that while rejecting the petition for discharge, the learned court below has committed no error. So far (2011) 3 SCC 351 is concerned, the said case was mainly for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and in the said case, the fact was that the petitioner of the said case had already resigned from the post of the Director of the Company and such documents were brought on record. Those documents were ignored by the High Court and, as such, the petitioners may not get any benefit from Harsendra Kumar's case (Supra). Similarly, Asmathunnisa's case (Supra) may not help the petitioners. It is true that while exercising power under Section 5 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24541 of 2008 (3) dt.12-03-2012 5/5 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in appropriate cases, the High Court can interfere with a case at the initial stage, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioners may not get any help from the aforesaid Judgments.
In view of the facts and circumstances, both the petitions stand dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/-