ORDER : Heard Mr. P. S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Shailendra Jit, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 16.10.2015 passed in C.P. Case No. 1489 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad by which the application for discharge preferred by the petitioners has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the allegation made in the complaint petition itself is falsified in view of the fact that the petitioner no. 1 had secured employment in B.C.C.L. in the year 1982 whereas it has been averred by the complainant that the petitioner has secured employment in place of his father after his father died in the year 2005. Learned counsel submits that some of the witnesses in the complaint petition have also stated about the fact that the petitioner no. 1 was in service prior to the death of the father of the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that without providing the information obtained under the Right to Information Act as has been stated by some of the witnesses the learned court below merely made assertion of the same and had dismissed the application for discharge preferred by the petitioners. It has also been submitted that there has been a considerable delay in instituting the complaint case and these facts have not been properly appreciated by the learned court below in the impugned order dated 16.10.2015. 4. Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, has supported the impugned order and has further submitted that the father of the petitioner no. 1 whose name is Badruddin Ansari which is reflected in the complaint petition and since in the service excerpt or any other documents whose father's name has been mentioned as Samiruddin Mian which is the same as that of the complaint, the allegation made against the petitioners gets substantiated. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 16.10.2015 has considered the evidence of the witnesses of the complainant and on taking into consideration the statement with respect to the information gathered under the Right to Information Act the discharge application preferred by the petitioners had been rejected. 5. The complaint petition reveals the allegation that the petitioner no. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 16.10.2015 has considered the evidence of the witnesses of the complainant and on taking into consideration the statement with respect to the information gathered under the Right to Information Act the discharge application preferred by the petitioners had been rejected. 5. The complaint petition reveals the allegation that the petitioner no. 1 had secured appointment after the death of the father of the complainant in the year 2005. Allegation has also been levelled with respect to the assault committed upon the complainant by the other accused persons and snatching away of Rs. 520/-from the pocket of the petitioner no. 1. 6. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners which shows his date of appointment in B.C.C.L. as on 20.04.1982 as a Miner Loader. Although from the discharge application which has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the Bar there does not appear to be any statement with respect to the appointment of the petitioner no. 1 but the evidence of the witnesses do suggest that at the time of the death of the father of the complainant the petitioner no. 1 was already in service in B.C.C.L. It further appears that no documents have been produced on behalf of the complainant to substantiate the claim of the witnesses that the petitioner no. 1 had obtained employment on the death of the father of the complainant. 7. Although the documents which have been brought by the petitioners on record by way of supplementary affidavit was not before the learned trial court at the time of hearing of the discharge application but the evidence of the witnesses as well as the averments made in the compliant petition does not seem to have been properly considered and concentration has only been made with respect to the statement of the witnesses of the alleged employment secured by the petitioner no. 1 in place of the father of the complainant as could be gathered by them under the Right to Information Act without there being any supportive documents to the said facts. 8. The impugned order dated 16.10.2015, therefore, is not sustainable in the eye of law in absence of consideration and appreciation of proper material available on records. 9. 1 in place of the father of the complainant as could be gathered by them under the Right to Information Act without there being any supportive documents to the said facts. 8. The impugned order dated 16.10.2015, therefore, is not sustainable in the eye of law in absence of consideration and appreciation of proper material available on records. 9. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1489 of 2011 is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law based on the materials available on records and after hearing the parties. 10. The aforesaid exercise should be completed by the learned trial court within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. This application stands disposed of.