IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52409 of 2008 KRIPA MANDAL son of Parshuram Mandal, resident of Dewadha P.S. Bath Distt. Bhagalpur. ……………… Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ……………… Opposite party. ----------- 3 06.05.2009 Petitioner wants quashing of the order dated 16.9.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.780 of 2006 by virtue of the said order in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner and two others have been summoned to face trial. Earlier Bath P.S. Case No.05 of 2005 was instituted on 23.3.2005 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code along with 27 of the Arms Act. The question related to killing of the husband of the informant where many persons named in the F.I.R. were responsible for the said crime. The F.I.R. assigns various roles to the various persons. Police investigated the matter and charge sheet came to be filed against some other persons but this petitioner along with two other persons was not sent up for trial. Cognizance was taken, trial began and many witnesses came to 2 be examined. Based on the consistent and persistent evidence which has come during the course of trial, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon this petitioner to face trial and the same was accepted vide order dated 16.9.2008 and the petitioner was summoned under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which is the cause and occasion for the petitioner to challenge the order in the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements have been made by the witnesses that petitioner was only present and was indulgent in pushing shoving of the deceased. There is nothing to show that he has actually committed the crime. This allegation was against the other persons present at the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that the deceased was a veteran criminal and there is a case of false implication and this is why the police did not submit a chargesheet against the petitioner. When the matter was heard earlier petitioner was directed to bring on record all the evidences on record. The deceased’s wife and other witnesses have certified the presence 3 of the petitioner at the place of occurrence and a role has been assigned even though it is not a case where he has been alleged to have fired or shot dead the victim. But then it cannot be said that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter because his presence at the scene of crime and was indulging in pushing-shoving which is a reflection on the common intent or otherwise of the of the petitioner with other accused. Be that as it may, on perusal of the impugned order it is a case where the learned Additional Sessions Judge has summoned the petitioner not only on the asking of the prosecution but is based on reasoning which are apparent on record. No case for interference is made out. This quashing application is dismissed. Bibhash (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)