ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 09.04.2018 passed in G.R. No.993 of 2015 arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.347 of 2015 by which his application for discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C has been declined. 2. Contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are; (i) the materials collected during the investigation, more particularly, the documents seized from the Housing Board during the investigation do not constitute essential ingredients for the offences punishable under section 467, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 IPC, (ii) there is no allegation that the petitioner has done or omitted to do something in the entire transaction in which it is alleged that the plot allotted in favour of Shiv Mangal Prasad Sinha has been transferred in the name of Binay Kumar who claimed himself son of the said allottee, and (iii) it is the prosecution’s own case that the petitioner has committed the offence as alleged in course of discharge of his official duty and while so, without sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C the petitioner cannot be put on trial. 3. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of investigation neither parentage of the allottee was verified nor the Investigating Officer cared to verify parentage of the husband of the complainant-Kanti Kumari Sinha who has given a written complaint dated 10.10.2007. The learned counsel submits that the documents which have been seized by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation do not disclose any overt act by the petitioner. 4. Alleging allotment of a plot by an order dated 22.09.1994 in the name of the complainant’s husband who was an employee under M/s TISCO, which has been transferred by the Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur on 16.01.2015 in the name of a fictitious person, a written report dated 19.09.2015 was submitted by the Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board. On the basis of the written report dated 19.09.2015, Adityapur P.S. Case No.347 of 2015 was lodged on 20.09.2015 for the offences punishable under section 467, 468, 471, 420/34 IPC. The First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner - Tariq Hussain Khan @ Tarique Hussain Khan and one Braj Kishore Lal, a retired Executive Engineer. The petitioner at that time was working under the Housing Board. The First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioner - Tariq Hussain Khan @ Tarique Hussain Khan and one Braj Kishore Lal, a retired Executive Engineer. The petitioner at that time was working under the Housing Board. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner, however, investigation against the co-accused Braj Kishore Lal was kept pending. After cognizance of the offence was taken, the petitioner filed an application for discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C which was dismissed on 11.08.2017, however, in a revision petition filed by him challenging the order dated 11.08.2017 this Court interfered with the said order in Cr. Revision No.1317 of 2017 and the matter was remitted back for a fresh consideration. On remand, by the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner under section 239 Cr.P.C has again been dismissed. 5. Since beginning, it is the prosecution’s case that both the accused persons with common intention have committed cheating, forgery etc. The charge-sheet dated 30.04.2016 has also been filed on the aforesaid allegation. The prosecution has asserted that during the course of investigation the witnesses namely, Harendra Bhatt, Shiva Nand Pandit and Ajay Kumar who are working under the Jharkhand State Housing Board have spoken about complicity of the petitioner in the crime. 6. This is not the stage of meticulous examination of the materials brought before the Magistrate on the basis of which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and declined to discharge the accused under section 239 Cr.P.C. It is not providence of the Magistrate to scrutinize the prosecution’s evidence meticulously, probe into the contradictions, probability or improbability in the prosecution’s case and arrive at a final conclusion whether there are sufficient materials for conviction of the accused. It is really a stage at which all that the Magistrate is required to see is whether a prima-facie case has been made out or not. In a catena of cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that this is really the stage of “suspicion”, may be strong suspicion, that the accused is involved in the commission of crime that is how charge is framed against an accused. In “Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja” (1979) 4 SCC 247, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “18. In “Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja” (1979) 4 SCC 247, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “18. It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 39 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 533: AIR 1977 SC 2018 ] the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon 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 the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.” 7. Adopting a similar reasoning, the Supreme Court in “Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation” 2018 SCC Online SC 310 has held, “Consideration of the challenge against an order of framing charge may not require meticulous examination of voluminous material which may be in the nature of a mini trial.” 8. The learned Magistrate in the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 has discussed the materials collected during the course of investigation and has recorded the following findings: “After considering the submission of both the parties, contentions of learned counsel for the applicant, statement of prosecution witnesses recorded u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. as mentioned in para-11, 13, 14 & 15 as well as allotment letters in the name of late Shiv Mangal Pd. Sinha dated 22.09.99, hire purchase agreement 16.02.06 along with schedule of the land dated 16.02.06, letter no.1698/Aa dated 10.10.07, transferring the land in the name of Binay Kumar, Prima-facie, it appears that there are sufficient materials on the record against the accused for his involvement in the commission of the offence u/s 467, 468, 471, 420/34 of the IPC. Sinha dated 22.09.99, hire purchase agreement 16.02.06 along with schedule of the land dated 16.02.06, letter no.1698/Aa dated 10.10.07, transferring the land in the name of Binay Kumar, Prima-facie, it appears that there are sufficient materials on the record against the accused for his involvement in the commission of the offence u/s 467, 468, 471, 420/34 of the IPC. In view of above discussions and the materials available on the record, I am of the opinion that there are grounds for presuming that the Accused has committed the offence u/s 467, 468, 471, 420/34 of the IPC which can be tried by this court. In view of the above, the above discharge petition dated 24.08.16 filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner namely Tariq Hussain Khan is hereby dismissed. Accused is directed to appear physically on the next date i.e. on 04.05.18 for framing of charge.” 9. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances in the case, without recording a specific finding on facts because it may cause prejudice to the petitioner except observing that the requirement for sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C is not necessary if the act alleged constitutes crime even though it has been committed during discharge of the official duty; commission of an offence would not be in discharge of the official duty, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 does not warrant interference. 10. In the result, Criminal Revision No.671 of 2018 is dismissed.