IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34753 of 2010 DROPADI DEVI & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 2.11.2010 Heard Shri Surya Narain Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned A.P.P. for the State. The ground for quashing the order framing charges dated 9.8.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2010 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, is that the assailant of the injured, i.e., Raj Kumar Ram who was alleged to have given Pagharia blow on the head of the injured was not sent up for trial nor cognizance taking court had summoned him and, as such, the court below was not competent to direct framing of charges by the aid of provisions regarding vicarious liability of a member of an unlawful assembly. I have perused the impugned order and I find that the First Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, might have erred in recording the facts as regards vicarious liability but as regards the order of framing of charges he was perfectly correct when he was holding that as soon as it was an unlawful assembly acting in furtherance of the common object, even, all of its members could be equally responsible for an act which might have been committed by any of its members. Simply not sending up accused Raj Kumar Ram may not be material in such cases. As regards the contention that an offence under Section 2 307 of the Penal Code may not be made out, the Court feels, it will be just not right to upset the finding recorded by the court below which had perused the injury report also as appears from the impugned order. In the result, the petition appears of no merit and the same is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)