IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49256 of 2007 1. Ganesh Paswan, Son of Mushaharu Paswan. 2. Binod Paswan. 3. Umesh Paswan. Both 2 & 3 are sons of Chabbu Paswan, resident of Lokahi, P.S. Bihra, District Saharsa. --------- Petitioners Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2(a) Bechani Devi, Wife of Late Funni Sharma. 2(b) Arjun Sharma, Son of Funni Sharma. 2(c) Shiba Sharma, Son of Funni Sharma. All resident of Village Lokahi, P.S. Bihra, Dist. Shaharsa. ----------- Opposite Parties 9 29.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The primal challenge to the impugned order summoning the petitioners to face trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) is passed only on the ground that since the petitioners were named in the First Information Report and the investigation against them was still pending, and thus they being accused, could not have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2(a) to 2(c) on the other hand would submit that the impugned order does not suffer from any error, inasmuch as, from the impugned order itself, it is clear that five witnesses were examined and all of them have 2 named the petitioners to have played specific role in the alleged occurrence. He has also highlighted that while the police had submitted charge-sheet pertaining to the First Information Report of the year 2006 (dated 16.10.2006) as against some of the accused persons, it had deliberately not completed the investigation against these petitioners even in a span of more than four years. This Court, without taking into consideration the lapses or delay in the investigation caused by the police as against these petitioners, would go strictly by the principles of law, inasmuch as, it is well settled that merely because someone is named in the First Information Report, he does not become accused of the case. If that be the actual position in law, there would be no impediment for the Court to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon a person who was named in the First Information Report and investigation against him was kept while, while the trial had commenced against the other chargesheeted co-accused. Let it be made clear that the counsel 3 for the petitioners has not submitted that in course of such examination of five witnesses, the names of the petitioners or the role played by them had not come to the fore. Thus, if there were materials before the court for exercise of such power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the impugned order cannot be faulted on any score. That being so, this application seems to be wholly misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that there would be now no need for the police to continue with the investigation, inasmuch as, the petitioners have already been summoned to face the trial. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)