The trial court must not act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record, of the evidence and the document produced before the Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the final form vide charge sheet no. 14/2022 dated 13.09.2022 submitted in a case being Economic Offence Unit P.S. Case No. 20/2022 registered under Sections 420, 467. 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 66 of the Information and Technology Act and Section 3/10 of the Bihar Examination Control Act.

3. As per prosecution, a written report before the Dy. S.P.-cum-Station House Officer, Economic Offence Police Station, Patna stating that 67th Combined Competitive Preliminary Examination was scheduled on 08.05.2022. The E.O.U., Bihar, Patna received information that the question paper was made viral on social media even before the examination started. It was further informed that candidates at the examination centre, Veer Kunwar Singh University, Bhojpur, boycotted the examination. The pictures of question paper, OMR Sheet and many videos are viral in this regard. It was further disclosed that copy of question paper has already been sent to Controller of Examination, Bihar Public Service Commission. Therefore, an F.I.R. was lodged against unknown group for making the question paper viral before the examination.

4. Though, this application is heard at length on the last few dates and I found no material against the petitioner, but today in course of hearing, it has been pointed out that the 11 page discharge application was filed on 28.03.2023. The same was heard by the court below on 29.03.2023 and the same was dismissed on 29.03.2023 and the charges were framed on 31.03.2023. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the disposal of the discharge application of the petitioner in such a hurry is complete denial of justice and is against the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Kanchan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2022) 9 SCC 577.

5. Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the Economic Offence Unit, has submitted that the impugned order is a well reasoned order and the same should be sustained, he has taken this Court to the various materials in the case diary in support of this case.

6. I have considered the submissions of both the parties, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra), following paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow:

13. The threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., is to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record, including examination of any infirmities appearing in the case. In Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), it was noted that:

“10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the ev