IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5653 of 2007 1. Rabindra Singh, son of Harihar Singh, 2. Ajay Kumar Singh, 3. Lalan Kumar Singh, 4. Arjun Kumar Singh, all sons of Rabindra Singh, 5. Savitri Devi, wife of Rabindra Singh, all residents of Gangajal Chausia, PS Sonpur, District Saran at Chapra – petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Jainath Singh, village Gangajal Chausia, PS Sonpur, district Saran at Chapra – opp. parties. 9 19.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 19.12.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC V, Chapra in S.T. No. 674/2006 by which the petitioners’ application under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected and refused to discharge them for the offences under sections 307 of the Penal Code. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the first information given to the Officer Incharge of Sonpur P.S. should be treated as the F.I.R. In the said statement of the informant, no case has been made out with respect to section 307 of the Penal Code whereas in the second statement made before the Sub Inspector on 6.12.2004 was exaggerated version of the occurrence put forward by the informant of this case. Counsel for the petitioners submits that if the first statement is taken into account, then the petitioners should be discharged for the offence under section 307 of the Penal Code. However, the court at this stage cannot compare the statements and come to any sort of conclusion without examining / cross examining 2 the informant with respect to the circumstances in which these two statements were given before the authorities alleging the commission of a crime. In the circumstances I find myself unable to interfere with the order impugned. This application is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)