IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.72 of 2010 BINOD SINGH, son of Late Narayan Singh, resident of village- Narangi Jeevnath, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary Law, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Santosh Kumar Sah, son of Sri Ram Sagar Sah, resident of village- Narangi Jeevnath, P.S.- Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 3/ 20.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.10.2009 passed in S. Tr. No. 495 of 2002 by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-3, Muzaffarpur whereby charge has been framed under Sections 324, 326 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also prayed for transfer of case bearing S. Tr. No. 495 of 2002, arising out of Saraiya P.S. case no. 37 of 1999 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-3, Muzaffarpur to any appropriate court situated at Muzaffarpur for the ends of justice. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though he was not present, charges have been framed against him on 13.10.2009. He further submits that there is no material to show that he was called back again from the jail custody. Counsel for the State submits that the signature of the petitioner is there on the record. On this basis, the petitioner has also prayed for transfer of the case from the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-3, Muzaffarpur to another court. Whether the petitioner was again brought from the custody or not would be one, which would be based on evidence, if the 2 petitioner is aggrieved against framing of charges, he may move appropriate application. It is also relevant to state that the case is of the year, 1999. So far as transfer of the case from the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-3, Muzaffarpur is concerned, the petitioner ought to have made application under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. instead of moving this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)