IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5801 of 2010 1. SUDAMA RAM SON OF SRI RAMDEO RAM 2. RAMAKANT RAM SON OF SRI MOSHAFIR RAM 3. AMARNATH RAM SON OF LATE AMIR RAM, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAE BAIJALPUR KESHO, P.S. + P.O. SONEPUR, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA ….. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. HARI NARAIN SINGH SON OF LATE UTTAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAIJALPUR KESHO, P.S. SONEPUR, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA ….. OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 3. 1.10.2010 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Saran at Chapra, by which he has taken cognizance u/s.302/34 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act in Protest-cum- Complaint case No.C274 of 2008. The background of the case is that on 22.10.2001 a First Information Report was instituted with regard to the present occurrence, in which the petitioners were also named, but charge sheet was submitted against co-accused Jai Mangal Ram, but final report was submitted with regard to the petitioners, which was accepted by the court below. Thereafter the trial of Jai Mangal Ram proceeded in which even though the witnesses named the present petitioners, no efforts were taken for summoning them as additional accused as envisaged u/s.319 Cr.P.C. After said Jai Mangal Ram was convicted, a protest petition was filed by the informant, which was treated as complaint and cognizance was taken as mentioned above. 2 The Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once the court had accepted the final report and no steps have been taken to summon the petitioner u/s.319 Cr.P.C., the court should not have proceeded on the protest petition. The Counsel for the opposite party no.2 disputes this point. Considering that there was material against the petitioners to warrant putting the petitioners on trial in a serious case of murder, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The application is dismissed. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )