IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.12788 of 2008
Maujelal Choudhary, Son of Late Ishwar Choudhary, resident of
Village-Kuddutarh, P.S. Jandaha, District-Vaishali ( the then Physical
Teacher, Government High School, Maner)
-------------- Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
02 24-06-2010 Heard Sri Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey,
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated
19.2.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Danapur in Maner P.S. Case No.65 of 2005, corresponding to
Trial No.1639 of 2007, registered under Sections
420,467,468,471,427, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the
said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge
petition filed by the petitioner.
Sri Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, submits that the
learned Magistrate without assigning any reason and without
discussing the evidence has rejected the discharge petition in a
perfunctory manner. It was submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that it is mandatory on the part of the court to assign
a detailed reason discussing the entire evidence, while hearing the
discharge petition and passing the order on it, but the learned
2
Magistrate has not discussed anything and only on the ground of
order of cognizance he has rejected the discharge petitioner. It was
further argued that though the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the
written report of the informant, the informant was not re-examined
during the investigation. According to Sri Thakur, learned counsel
for the petitioner, this is a serious defect and accordingly, he has
prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.2.2008.
Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer
of the petitioner. She submits that as per provisions under Section
239,227 or 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the time of
rejection of discharge petition, there is no requirement to assign
any reason. It was submitted that however, if the courts considers
discharging an accused, it is mandatory on the part of the court to
assign a detailed reason. It was further argued that in the F.I.R.
itself there is specific allegation against the petitioner that the
petitioner being a Physical Training Teacher had instigated some
other accused persons and thereafter, the office of the informant
was ransacked. The informant was also threatened/ intimidated by
the petitioner. It was further argued that the petitioner was illegally
and unauthorisedly keeping the official records and he had also
misappropriated the fund of the School.
On perusal of the impugned order, it also appears that
the learned Magistrate, while rejecting the discharge petition, has
examined the entire records including the F.I.R., Case diary and
3
other materials and after being satisfied that there is sufficient
material available on the record, has rejected the discharge petition
filed by the petitioner. I am of the view that at the time of rejection
of discharge petition, Section 239 Cr.P.C. does not make it
mandatory to assign reason. However, at the time of discharge, as
per statutory provision, reason is to be assigned. Meaning thereby
that in a criminal case, trial is a rule and discharge is exception.
On perusal of the record, I am satisfied that while rejecting the
discharge petition filed by the petitioner , the learned Magistrate
has committed no error and moreover, the order was passed long
back on 19.2.2008.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the case and
the petition stands rejected.
NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )