IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.564 of 2008 SATYENDRA KUMAR @ SATYENDRA KUNWAR S/O- VIGAN KUNWAR, R/O- VILLAGE- RANJITPUR, P.S.- SITAMARHI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHRI KUNDAN KUNAL, S/O- SHRI SATYANARAIN KUNWAR, R/O- VILLAGE RANJITPUR, P.S.- SITAMARHI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh no. 3, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 3 31.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.5.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2008 whereby the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C has been considered and rejected. Learned trial court has found and noted that the case diary reflects presence of sufficient evidence against the petitioner who has been named in the F.I.R also as an accused. Consequently, the application has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the girl, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., did not name any accused persons including the petitioner. This Court finds from Annexure-2 that she was definitely less than 16 years of age as the Court has assessed her age between 16 to 17 years whereas girl declared her age as 16 years. There may be diverse reasons for making the aforesaid statement before the Court. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to see as to whether the materials on record are sufficient enough to proceed with the case or not. The order impugned records the aforesaid satisfaction of the court based on 2 perusal of the case diary. This court does not find merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )