Judgment Naresh Kumar Sinha, J. Parwati Devi (deceased) was murdered by two known criminals at about mid day on the 23rd of August 1988. An FIR was lodged against unknown by Ramanuj Kumar who at the time of incident was driving at scooter with the deceased on the pillion. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against who persons including the petitioner for offences under section 302 and 120 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Session Trial No. 316 of 1990 in connection with the said murder was pending before the learned Additional Session Judge. The petitioner filed an application for his discharge which was rejected by order 12.3.91 and hence this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter the ‘Code’) for quashing of the said order as also the criminal prosecution of the petitioner for the offences alleged. 2. There are no eye witnesses to the murder. The information who was a relation of the deceased and an eye witness to the occurrence simply claimed that two unknown young men had committed the murder. The petitioner is the Bahnoi of one Mathura Prasad the Bhainaur of the deceased being the elder brother of the deceased’s husband. There was some dispute in between Mathura Prasad and the deceased and Mathura Prasad is alleged to have threatened the deceased of dire consequences if she did not give up her claim to the lands of Bochachak which had been allotted to her share. Some material collected in course of police investigation and mentioned in the case diary suggested that the deceased had addressed two letters to the Sr. Police Inspector and ASP on 8.3.88 and 26.3.88 respectively wherein the referred to same incidents in course of which the petitioner along with others had threatened to kill the deceased if she did not give up her claim to the disputed lands. The case of the petitioners is that he had nothing to do with the lands in dispute in between Mathura Prasad and the deceased and had been falsely implicated only because he happened to be a relation of the Mathura Prasad. 3. Sri Braj Kishore Prasad, leaned Sr. The case of the petitioners is that he had nothing to do with the lands in dispute in between Mathura Prasad and the deceased and had been falsely implicated only because he happened to be a relation of the Mathura Prasad. 3. Sri Braj Kishore Prasad, leaned Sr. council appearing for the petitioner argued that material contained in the case dairy did not cannot the petitioner with the alleged murder and hence the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the petitioners prayer for his discharge in the case was not accordance with the provisions of the section 227 of the Code. Learned council appearing for the State was very fair to state after perusing the case dairy that there was no direct evidence connecting the petitioner with the crime and all that had been alleged against him was that he along with Mathura Prasad had threatened the petitioner on two occasions some five month before the alleged occurrence with serious consequences if she did not give up her claim to some lands. It was also conceded at the Bar that the case dairy did not contain any material in support of the prosecution case that this petitioner had entered into any criminal conspiracy with some one whose identity could not be ascertained for commission of the alleged murder. Thus in other words the only material that appears to have been collected by the police against the petitioner was that in March 1988 the petitioner had figured in two incidents in which a threat to kill the deceased was held out. The impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioner was however sought to be supported on the ground that the strong suspicion that the petitioner may have a hand in the murder of the deceased was sufficient for farming charge as it afforded sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner-accused. 4. Section 227 of the Code is in Chapter VII of the Code which provides the procedure for trial before a Court in pursuance of a commitment of the case under section 209, the prosecutor shell open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt the accused. 4. Section 227 of the Code is in Chapter VII of the Code which provides the procedure for trial before a Court in pursuance of a commitment of the case under section 209, the prosecutor shell open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt the accused. This is following by section 227 which provides that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the document submitted their with and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing Section 228(1) then provides that if after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is either exclusively triable by the court or not so exclusively triable and in case it is exclusively triable by court he shall frame a charge in writing and in the other case frame a charge and transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In Sri Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and another (JT 1996 (7) SC 67) the Apex Court had occasion to consider the provision of sections 226, 227 and 228 of the Code. It was observed that considerations which should weigh with the Sessions Court at this stage have been well designed by the Parliament through section 227 of Code. After referring to the provisions of section 227 it was observed that section 228 contemplates the stage after the case survives the stage envisaged in the former section and when the court is of the opinion that there is grounded to presume that the accused had committed and offence the procedure laid down therein has to be adopted. It was further observed that when both sections 227 and 228 are put and in juxtaposition with each other the test to be adopted becomes discernible : Is there sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused ? Two decision of the Court vide State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh ( AIR 1977 SC 2018 ) and superintendent & Remembrances of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Two decision of the Court vide State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh ( AIR 1977 SC 2018 ) and superintendent & Remembrances of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja ( AIR 1980 SC 52 ) were referred to while stating that it is axiomatic that the standard of proof normally adhered to at the final stage is not to be applied at the stage where the scope of consideration is whether there is “sufficient ground for proceeding”. The observation of the Court in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar (1979 Cr. L.J. 154) has also been referred to that while considering the question of farming charge the court has “the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out”. In the said their Lordships, had however pointed out that the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depended upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down the rule of universal application. It was observed in Profulla Kumar’s case (supra) that by and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rice to some suspicion but not grave suspicion the Judge would be fully within his right to discharge the accused” but only after cautioning that a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence as if he was conducting the trial is not expected or even warranted at this stage. In Sri Satish Mehra’s case (supra) the Apex Court after referring to the earlier decisions of the court on the Subject proceeded to observe to quote :- “14. The object of providing such an opportunity as is envisaged in Section 227 of the code is to enable the Court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduced the trial. If the case ands there it gains a lot of time of the Court and saves much human efforts and cost. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue why should the Court shut it out saying that such documents need be produced only after a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue why should the Court shut it out saying that such documents need be produced only after a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings. Hence, we are of the view that Sessions Judge would be within his powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Code. 15. But when the Judge is fairly contain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trail only of the purpose of formally completing procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are mindful that must of the sessions courts in India are under heavy pressure of work load. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be and exercise in futility or a sheet waste of time it is advisable to truncate or nip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.” 5. Sri Prasad argued that the materials claimed to have been collected against the petitioner did not give rise to any suspicion that he had a hand in the murder. The informant the only eye witness to the murder was a relation of the deceased and Mathura Prasad was the older brother of the deceased’s husband. The petitioner being the Bahnoi of Mathura Prasad can be safely presumed to be known to the informant. The occurrence took place at about mid day and the informant had occasion to see both the criminals who filed one suit each at the deceased who fell down injured and did after being taken to the hospital. According to the prosecution case the deceased had fallen down unconscious and had no occasion to make any statement before the police. As is evidence from paragraph 49 of the case dairy the petitioner is said to be the Chairman of the patliputra Co-operative Bank and Secretary of Communist Party of India. From the submissions made on behalf of the State while opposing the prayer of the petitioner for discharge in the case it appears that it was the prosecution stand that the petitioner who had actually not participated in the murder had entered into a criminal conspiracy for the murder of the deceased. From the submissions made on behalf of the State while opposing the prayer of the petitioner for discharge in the case it appears that it was the prosecution stand that the petitioner who had actually not participated in the murder had entered into a criminal conspiracy for the murder of the deceased. There is admittedly no such material in the case dairy. In other words all that remained against the petitioner was that more then 5 months prior to the alleged murder he had along with others threatened to kill the deceased if she did not give up her claim to some lands. The admitted position of that there was no dispute in between the petitioner and the deceased and if any such land dispute existed it was in between the deceased and Mathura Prasad. Thus it is difficult to refute the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner that on the materials collected no prima facie case is made out and even no grave suspicion should be entertained that he had participated in the murder and it was almost certain that the trial of the petitioner would be an exercise in futility and hence a sheer waste of time. As held by the Apex Court in Sri Satish Mehra’s case (supra) the Sessions Court in such a case ought to truncate or nip the proceeding at the stage of section 227 of the Code itself. 6. Mr. Prasad also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ). One of the categories of cases indicated by the court in which the High Court is exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constituted or under section 482 of the Code may interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice was where “the introverted allegations made in FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused”. It was argued that the instant case is included in the aforesaid category offences as there is no evidence whatsoever that the petitioner participated in the murder or conspired with any one to commit the same. It was argued that the instant case is included in the aforesaid category offences as there is no evidence whatsoever that the petitioner participated in the murder or conspired with any one to commit the same. It may be recalled that the FIR dose not name the petitioner and the evidence collected in course of police investigation did not deceased that the petitioner had entered into any criminal conspiracy to commit the same. 7. Thus for the foregoing reasons the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioner in the case as also his criminal prosecution for the offences alleged are abuse of the process of the court and their quashing is necessary to secure the ends of justice. I order accordingly and allow this application. Application allowed.