IMPORTANT POINT
At the stage of Section 227 of Cr.P.C., the Court must determine whether the material on record, if un-rebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction is reasonably possible.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V.A. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No. 349/2022 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for discharge from criminal charges was rejected and thereupon, framed charges under Section 120(B)/306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).

3. The case of the petitioner is that on 01.07.2022 one Vineet Bagaria (since deceased) lodged an ejahar against Baidulla Khan and Sanjay Sharma alleging that they were threatening with dire consequences. Thereafter, the father of the deceased Kailash Bagaria lodged another ejahar on 05.07.2022 before the Superintendent of Police, Dibrugarh alleging that Baidulla Khan, Nishant Sharma, Sanjay Sharma along with some other persons attempted to break their house premises and also gave life threats.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter on 07.07.2022 Vineet Bagaria committed suicide and thereafter the father of the deceased Kailash Bagaria again lodged another ejahar on 07.07.2022 against Sri Baidulla Khan, Sri Sanjay Sharma and Sri Nishant Sharma alleging that owing to all misdeeds, physical and mental torture meted out to Vineet Bagaria, the later, lost his life. Accordingly, a case was registered i.e. Dibrugarh Police Station Case No. 390/2022.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Investigating Agency submitted charge sheet on 01.09.2022 in connection with Dibrugarh Police Station Case No. 390/2022 arising out of information dated 07.07.2022.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that during investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of various witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency filed charge sheet on 01.09.2022 being Charge Sheet No. 337/2022 under Sections 306/34 IPC added Sections 120(B)/307 IPC before the Court below against five persons including the petitioner. Thereafter, on 29.05.2023, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons including the petitioner.

7. Though the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging him in the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, after hearing the parties, rejected the said application by the same order dated 29.05.2023.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal petition has been filed.

9. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. He further submits that the father of the informant has categorically said that only four persons are involved and the name of the petitioner is not disclosed in the statement of the father. He further submits that the petitioner is not ‘Ajaz Khan’ who is disclosed by the witnesses to be involved in the case in hand. He further submits that the material gives rise to suspicion and hence, the trial Judge ought to have discharged the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39.

10. Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing of the aforesaid order of discharge. He submits that the Criminal Court has applied its mind and by reasoned order, has rejected the prayer for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that there are materials available constituting the offence charged against the petitioner.

11. Mr. P. Bor