IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15481 of 2007 1. NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ NAGO SINGH, son of Sri Satya Narain Singh, resident of village Kesabe, P.S. Barauni, district Begusari. ……………….. Petitioner Versus 2. STATE OF BIHAR 3. Shankar Pandit S/0- Jageshwar Pandit, village-Hariyapur, P.S.Nayagam, district-Begusarai. ----------- 8 29.04.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.2.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge I, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No.41 of 2005 by virtue of the said order the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts are that one Laxmi Narayan Paswan doing work for the Panchayat was murdered. Allegation had been made against many persons named in the F.I.R. including the present petitioner as well. The background to the said dispute was supposed to be the contract work under M.L.A. which scheme was going on under the supervision of the M.L.A. of in the area i.e. the petitioner. Other details are not necessary to be noticed in the present case at this stage. 2 Investigation was made, charge sheet came to be filed against other accused persons but so far as the present petitioner and one Shanker Pandit, the police continued further investigation in the matter. Charge sheet was filed on 14.12.2004 and the investigation by the police against the petitioner is still on in the matter, despite five years having been elapsed in this regard. The trial of the accused persons, in custody, proceeded and it is during the course of trial that many witnesses made statements where the role of the petitioner emerged. The impugned order therefore came to be passed, stating the reasons for the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge-I, Begusarai and power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come to be exercised. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that since nothing substantial in terms of material emerged in the initial part of investigation therefore, police did not file charge sheet against him. In addition to that he also submits that even on going through the so called evidence of the various witnesses, it is not enough to pin down 3 the present petitioner as an accused or fix his culpability in the said trial. That is good enough for quashing the order summoning the petitioner. The Court has applied its mind with regard to the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and also perused some of the evidence who has been brought by the supplementary affidavits filed by the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that there is no material or sufficiency of evidence to summon the petitioner in the present case. The whole thing becomes even more curious because the police is still making investigations against the petitioner for last five years, but the witnesses have already come before the Court and stated against the petitioner in so many words. If this is the background under which the order, in the matter came to be passed it requires no interference as the learned A.D.J. has given sufficient reasons. This quashing application is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. Bibhash (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) 4