IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16556 of 2008 Hare Krishna Yadav, minor son of Budhram Yadav, through his father and natural guardian and well wisher, son of Lakhichand Yadav, resident of Village-Ekwari, P.S. Sahar in the district of Bhojpur…………………………………………………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Monako Devi, wife of Sri Ravilal Yadav, resident of village- Ekwari, P.S. Sahar in the district of Bhojpur. ………………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Akhileshar Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. B.P. Singh, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Rana Pratap Singh and Satyaveer, Advocates. ----------------------------------- 3. 30.8.2011. Heard. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 4th of March, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Ara, in Sessions Trial No.403 of 2005, arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No.162 of 2004, summoning the accused- petitioner to face trial, in exercise of power conferred under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., nor 2 chargesheet was submitted against him showing accused. Only on the basis of the evidence of witnesses examined during the trial petitioner and one Budhan Ram have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ignoring the fact that the petitioner was minor aged about 10 years at the time of occurrence. It appears that the F.I.R. was lodged against six accused persons, Suraj Yadav, Ragho Yadav, Chandradeo Yadav, Ajay Yadav, Lakhi Chand Yadav and Budhram Yadav for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 I.P.C. and the chargehseet was submitted only against five accused persons excluding Budhram Yadav. In course of trial, the name of the petitioner has been disclosed by the prosecution witnesses alleging that the petitioner has taken active part in the alleged occurrence. As such, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 4.3.2008. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the minority/ juvenility at the time of occurrence of the petitioner is concerned, he may raise this point at the appropriate stage before the trial court. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)