Judgment Shashank Kumar Singh, J. 1. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.8.1992 passed by Sri K. D. Mishra, 3rd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case no. 77 of 1992 arising out of Sarath P.S. Case No. 58 of 1991 dated 23.4.1991 under section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereby the learned court below has rejected the application of the petitioner under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not committed any offence, much less, the one as alleged in the present case. He has falsely been implicated in this concocted and false case for extraneous consideration, as is apparent from the first information report itself. 3. The petitioner is a school teacher and is a respectable person of the area. He got his daughter married to the son of the informant and as he could not satisfy the demand of dowry of his daughters in-law, even after the marriage of his daughter the informant never got the Bedai of the daughter of the petitioner solemnised. 4. As such, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no cause for the petitioner to get his son-in- law murdered. It has been accepted that the petitioner sent an information to his Samadhi about the examination of his daughter and called Naresh Chandra Mandal and sent his daughter to take examination along with her husband, his son, daughter-in-law, elder daughter and elder son-in-law. The petitioner being a school teacher could not accompany them due to his duties. After the examination was over all the persons returned but the son-in-law of the petitioner did not return back. 5. On enquiry, it was stated that he learnt that since his daughter had not done well in English paper her husband wanted to leave the examination and come back home. She insisted on taking the rest of the examinations upon which Naresh Chandra Mandal got angry and scolded her and left the place. Thereafter there was no trace of Naresh Chandra Mandal. 6. She insisted on taking the rest of the examinations upon which Naresh Chandra Mandal got angry and scolded her and left the place. Thereafter there was no trace of Naresh Chandra Mandal. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the whole case is a cooked up one and the same would be further exemplified by the fact that the petitioner being a father of the girl can never be a party to a conspiracy leading to the kidnapping of his son-in-law with the objective of killing him which would render his daughter becoming a widow. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the whole story is absurd as no father-in-law can ever imagine to kill his son-in-law. 8. In that view of the matter, it has been prayed that the impugned order by which the learned court below has refused to discharge the petitioner including the order taking cognizance be quashed. 9. In this regard, reliance has been made upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. P. Kapur V/s. The State of Punjab, reported in A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866. In the aforesaid judgment it has been held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash the proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 10. According to the learned counsel in view of the aforesaid decision, as the whole story of getting his son-in-law kidnapped and subsequently done to death is a cooked up story and as such the prosecution of the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court and as such, this Court should interfere with and quash the entire proceedings. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has stated that a bare perusal of the F.I.R., itself, makes out specific case triable under the Indian Penal Code and as such, the impugned order refusing to discharge the petitioner has rightly been passed and the said order should not be interfered with. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal V/s. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others, reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C.52. 12. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal V/s. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others, reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C.52. 12. In the aforesaid case a Bench of the Apex Court has held that if material on record was capable of inferring strong suspicion about the commission of offence, it was sufficient for framing charge. As in the aforesaid judgment it has been held that even a strong suspicion founded upon the materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify framing of charges against the accused in support of the commission of that offence. 13. In the present case admittedly even on a bare reading of the first information report, the allegations have been made against the petitioner and as there are allegations against him, which are triable under the Indian Penal Code, to my mind, the learned trial court rightly by the impugned order refused to discharge him after going through the F.l.R. and the case diary which goes to suggest that the petitioner-accused took the victim Naresh Chandra Mandal from his house, Jhangari on the plea that his wife had to appear in the school final examination at Sheikhpura. Later the petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the victim, informed the informant that due to dog bite Naresh Chandra Mandal had gone mad and had fled away some where. On enquiry the informant and other members of his family came to know that the victim, Naresh Chandra Mandal, was last seen alive with the accused persons at Sheikhpura where the accused persons had picked up a quarrel with him. The victim was manhandled and some intoxicant was administered to him at Sheikhpura by the accused persons including the petitioner. Since then, the victim has become traceless. 14. In view of the aforesaid fact being derived from the records of the case it cannot be said that no case is being made out against the petitioner triable under any section of the Indian Penal Code and as such, the whole proceeding is required to be quashed. 15. In the result, the present application fails and the same is dismissed. 15. In the result, the present application fails and the same is dismissed. The order of stay passed on 8.4.1993 is vacated and the learned court below is directed to proceed in this matter in accordance with law.