IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.3201 of 2008 AJAY RAI, son of Sri Jagdish Rai, Resident of village- Samahuta (Kawadih) P.S.-Kargahar, District- Rotas at Sasaram. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 14.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. Petitioner, the informant of Karhara P.S. case no. 54 of 2009 is aggrieved by order dated 01.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.-V, Rohtas in S.T. No. 534 of 2000 whereby he rejected his petition for summoning opposite party no.2 to face trial under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner submits that he alleged in F.I.R. that opposite party no.2, Ramjee Rai opened fire causing injury to Ramashish Yadav. Counsel for opposite party no.-2 submits that police after investigation submitted Final form and the learned Magistrate did not take cognizance against him. Furthermore, the petitioner did not pursue protest-cum-complaint petition. Learned counsel submits that only in exceptional circumstances, a person should be summoned to face trial under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. He relied upon decisions reported in 2008(4) PLJR 246 SC. I find that the learned trial judge has not given any cogent material for rejecting the petition for summoning the petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. This should not be taken that this court has expressed any opinion on the merit of the case In the circumstances, this court directs that the learned trial - 2 - court would decide the matter afresh in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the court below for consideration afresh. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)