ORDER By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the informant opposite party No.2. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Simdega, in case No. 181 of 2006 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Sections 239.Cr PC for discharge has been rejected by the Court below. 3. The petitioners have been made accused in Simdega P.S. Case No. 66 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. case No. 181 of 2006, for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, on the written report submitted by one Akhilesh Kumar Verma on behalf of M/s. Paragon Finance Limited. H.B. Road. Kokar, Ranchi, mentioning therein that the petitioners are the owner and representative of one M/s. Autobike and alleging that they introduced the other co-accused persons, who are the owner and representatives of one M/s. Anil Automobiles to the informant for financing two wheeler vehicles. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that the two wheeler vehicles were to be financed by the informant company to the said M/s. Anil Automobiles through M/s. Autobike of which the petitioners are the owner and representative. Similarly, the money collected from the purchasers of the vehicles were to be collected by M/s. Anil Automobiles and they were to be paid back to the informant company through M/s. Autobike. It is alleged in the F.LR. that the informant company had financed 22 two wheeler vehicles and Rs. 3,00,000/- was due against the accused persons apart from the interest thereon. With these allegations the F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioners who are the owner and represetative of the M/s. Autobike, as also against the owner and representatives of the M/s. Anil Automobiles. 4. From the F.I.R., it also appears that there is an affidavit sworn on 03.03.2004 by one Satyanarayan Prasad Thakur, who is the proprietor of M/s. Anil Automobiles and it appears from the said affidavit that the entire financial liability of Rs. 3,50,000/- due to the informant company namely Paragon Finance Limited, Ranchi has been taken by Satyanarayan Prasad Thakur, stating that he had received the money from the parties but they were spent by him and he undertook to refund the entire money. The said affidavit is the part of the FIR itself. 5. 3,50,000/- due to the informant company namely Paragon Finance Limited, Ranchi has been taken by Satyanarayan Prasad Thakur, stating that he had received the money from the parties but they were spent by him and he undertook to refund the entire money. The said affidavit is the part of the FIR itself. 5. It further appears that upon investigation of the case the charge-sheet has been submitted against all the accused persons and subsequently, the cognizance was also taken against the petitioners and other co-accused persons. In the meantime, it appears. that Satyanarayan Prasad Thakur had filed an application for anticipatory bail in the High Court in which, there was a compromise between the informant and the said accused person and he was granted anticipatory bail on the basis of the compromise. 6. Subsequently, the petitioners filed their application for discharge under Section 239. Cr PC. which was rejected by the Court below taking into consideration the allegation made against the petitioners in the F.I.R. and also stating that in the case diary there are sufficient materials to frame the charge against the accused persons. Accordingly, the application filed by the' petitioners for discharge was rejected by the Court below. The impugned order shows that the compromise entered between the informant and Satyanarayan Prasad Thakur has been taken note of by the Court below, but the details of the compromise have not been discussed in the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It has also been submitted that it is falsely alleged in the F.I.R, that in the business dealings between M/s. Anil Automobiles and the informant company, these petitioners were also involved. It is submitted that the petitioners have absolutely no concern with the business dealings between the two. It has also been pointed out from the affidavit, which is the part of the F.I.R itself that the entire liability has been accepted by Satyanarayan Prasad Thakur, the proprietor of M/s. Anil Automobiles. It is further submitted that in the entire case diary, there is no iota of any evidence against these petitioners rather the Court below ,has only stated that there are materials against the petitioners without discussing any material against them. It is further submitted that in the entire case diary, there is no iota of any evidence against these petitioners rather the Court below ,has only stated that there are materials against the petitioners without discussing any material against them. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 have submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction in as much as, the Court below has taken into consideration the materials collected during the investigation and has found that there are sufficient materials against the petitioners also for framing the charge. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has pressed the allegations made in the F.I.R., against the petitioners that these petitioners had introduced the proprietor and representatives of the M/s. Anil Automobiles to the informant and entire financial transaction was routed through M/s. Autobike, i.e., the petitioners' company, a the money collected from the purchasers of the vehicles were to be collected by M/s. Anil Automobiles and they were to be paid back to the informant company through M/s. Autobike. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 9. After having heard learned counsel for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that there is an affidavit sworn by Satyanarayan Prasad Thakur on 03.03.2004, which is the part of the F.I.R itself, in the said affidavit he has admitted himself to be the proprietor of M/s. Anil Automobiles and he has also under-taken the entire responsibility for Rs. 3,50,000/- stating that he had received the money from the parties, but they were spent by him and he undertook to refund the entire money to the informant company. 10. It is apparent from the impugned order that this affidavit has not been taken into consideration by the Court below while rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Sections 239, Cr PC. It is also apparent that the Court below has taken into consideration the fact that the case has been compromised between Satyanarayan Prasad Thakur and the informant company. but the details of the compromise have not been discussed in the impugned order. It is also apparent that the Court below has taken into consideration the fact that the case has been compromised between Satyanarayan Prasad Thakur and the informant company. but the details of the compromise have not been discussed in the impugned order. 11. It is thus, apparent that the Court below has not taken into consideration the material facts and documents at the time of consideration of the petition for discharge of the petitioners, in as much as, in the FIR, itself there is an affidavit sworn by Satyanarayan Prasad Thakur 03.03.2004 taking the entire responsibility upon himself. and the case has been compromised between him' and the informant company. I also find force in submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court below has only stated that there are materials against the petitioners in the case diary, without discussing any material against them. In this view of the matter. I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.04.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Simdega, in G.R. case No. 181 of 2006 is hereby set aside and the Court below is directed to pass the order afresh taking into consideration the entire materials on records, particularly the affidavit which is the part of the F.I.R. itself and the compromise between Satyanarayan Prasad Thakur and the informant company and also specifically discussing the materials that might have been collected during investigation of the case which have not at all been discussed in the impugned order. 13. This application is, accordingly allowed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith. Application allowed.