H. C. Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsels for both the sides. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.8.2010 passed by Sri S. N. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case no. 1667 of 2007, whereby the Court below has rejected the application filed by the accused -petitioners for discharging them and has directed them to appear for framing of charge.
(2.) IT appears that a complaint petition was filed against the petitioners by complainant, Yamuna Prasad, alleging that at the time and date of occurrence, the complainant and his son were assaulted by the accused persons in the school premises. It also appears that for the same occurrence, FIR was also lodged against the complainant and his son, in which, they were arrested and subsequently, the present complaint petition has been filed by the complainant implicating the accused -petitioners for the offence alleging that they were assaulted and the accused also snatched away his cash and watch of the complainant. It appears that the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation, wherein, he has supported the case. The complainant had also examined four witnesses before charge, on the basis of which, prime facie, case was found against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the petitioners filed the application for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order and the petitioners were asked to appear for framing of charge. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case as it is evident from the complaint petition itself that for the same occurrence, FIR was lodged against the complainant and his son and they were arrested in the case. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners have been made accused in a patently false case, the petitioners ought to have been discharged by the Court below.
(3.) LEARNED A.P.P. for the State as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, submitted that on the basis of materials brought on record, offence is clearly made out against the petitioners.;