IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.2916 of 2010 1. MAHESH SINGH, 2. GANESH SINGH, 3. JAI RAM SINGH, PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE SONS OF GHANSHYAM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE – KUMBHI, P.S. – WARSALIGANJ, DISTT. – NAWADAH, 4. SANJAY SINGH, 5. RANJAY SINGH, PETITIOENRS NO. 4 AND 5 ARE SONS OF TANIK SINGH, R/O VILLAGE – KESHAURI, P.S. PAKRIBARAWAN, DISTT. – NAWADAH …… PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. BINDO SINGH, SON OF LATE RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE – KUMBHI, P.S. WARSALIGANJ, DISTT. – NAWADAH ……………….. OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 29.01.2010. In this application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah on the ground that initially the Investigating Officer had not found any material against him but subsequently at the instance of the higher authorities on further investigation he has been maliciously roped in. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no role in the crime and, in fact, the circumstances and material that has been brought on 2 record would no way point out towards his involvement. Be that as it may, I am of the considered opinion the same is in the realm of trial and cannot be adverted to for the purpose of quashing of the order of cognizance. In view of the aforesaid analysis no case is made out for quashing and, accordingly, the application stands rejected. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. )