PRADEEP KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 10.9.2008 passed by Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in T.R. No. 1045 of 2008 (arising of Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 91 of 2007, G.R. Case No. 949 of 2007) whereby and whereunder the learned S.D.J.M. rejected the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 239, Cr PC for discharge. It appears that earlier the application was jointly filed by Meera Singh and Niraj Singh, but the prayer for discharge of the petitioner No. 1, Meera Singh was rejected by this Court by its order dated 5.5.2009 and only the case of petitioner No. 2, Niraj Singh was admitted.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner No. 2 that there is no iota of allegation to make out a case under Sections 406/420/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner No. 2, Neeraj Singh, who was a minor boy aged about 14 years on the alleged date of occurrence, when it is alleged by the complainant that he gave friendly loan of Rs. 5 lakhs to the main accused Heera Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in a decision reported in 2007 (5) SCC in the case of Soma Chakraborty that if there is no material to make out a prima facie case against accused the charges should not be framed.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the accused - petitioner No. 2, Niraj Singh as such the learned trial Court rightly refused the prayer of discharge filed by him. Since as per the judgment relied by the petitioner, it is stated that even when there is a strong suspicion is made out then also charges can be framed.;