Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.38036 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Pramod Yadav Son of Gajendra Yadav. 2. Umesh Yadav son of Kailu Yadav. 3. Surendra Yadav son of Tej Narain Yadav. 4. Hari Yadav son of Shiv Lal Yadav. All are resident of village Gamaharia, P.S. Biraul, P.O. Jagarnathpur, District Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Uma Shankar Rai son of Late Ram Swaroop Rai, resident of village Debkuli, P.S. Biraul, District Darbhanga. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 04-05-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 29.5.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Benipur, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.299 of 2001. By the said order, the learned trial Judge has allowed the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38036 of 2010 (3) dt.04-05-2012 2 / 4 2 Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the petitioners to face trial along with other accused persons, who are facing trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial court was not authorized to issue summon in this case. A plea was taken that petitioners were named in the F.I.R. and police had not submitted charge sheet against the petitioner, but other persons were sent up for trial by the police. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, in such a situation, only remedy was available to the informant to file a protest petition and at subsequent stage, learned trial Judge was not authorized to summon the petitioners to face trial. He has also argued that even evidence were not sufficient for summoning the petitioners. On aforesaid ground, it has been prayed to set aside the order. The F.I.R. i.e. Biraul P.S. Case Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38036 of 2010 (3) dt.04-05-2012 3 / 4 3 No.81 of 1998 was registered for the offence under [STATUTE] against 13 accused persons including the petitioners. However, police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against nine accused persons and petitioners were exonerated. During trial, four witnesses were examined and all the four witnesses have categorically stated that in the occurrence, 12-13 persons were involved. However, P.Ws.3 and 4 made categorically statement regarding involvement of the petitioners by name. The learned trial Judge, after being satisfied on the basis of evidence to show complicity of the petitioners, passed the order for summoning the petitioners. The argument, which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be misconceived. In view of provision contained under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the court is satisfied that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38036 of 2010 (3) dt.04-05-2012 4 / 4 4 there is material to form an opinion in respect of probability of conviction, then in that event, the court is well competent to summon any one, who is not an accused, to face trial along with accused already facing trial. After going through the impugned order and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any defect in the order. The petition stands dismissed. N.H./- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 148

Statute Text:
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Rioting armed with deadly Weapon. Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.