IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1547 of 2008 QAISER JAHAN WIFE OF GULAM MUSTAFA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MURGIACHAK, P.S. TAJPUR (BANGRA), DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. MUSTAQUE SON OF MD. SAYEED 3. MD. SHABBIR SON OF LATE ILYAS 4. RAJA AHMAD SON OF MD. SHABBIR 5. MD. MAHMOOD SON OF MD. ZAMIR 6. MD. FIROZ SON OF MD. SHAHID 7. TANWIR SON OF MD. SAFI ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MURGIA CHAK, P.S.- TAJPUR (BANGRA) DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR For the petitioner : Mr. Najmul Hoda, Advocate Fr the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 2 16.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the informant of the case which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 497 of 2004/85 of 2006 of the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C.-IV, Samastipur whereby application preferred under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) has been considered and rejected. It appears that F.I.R. under diverse sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 307 IPC was lodged against 11 accused persons. The police on conclusion of investigation found that there was/were evidence justifying the trial against 05 accused persons. They were thus sent up for trial. Rest of the accuseds named therein were not sent up for trial. The trial was taken up in the year 2004-05. An application was filed by the present petitioner on 14.3.2005 for summoning other accused persons not standing trial (O.P. nos. 2 to 7 herein) which was 2 rejected by order dated 22.3.2005. It is submitted that while rejecting the application, learned trial court had observed that the petitioner may make such an application at subsequent stage of the proceeding. The trial thereafter proceeded. As many as 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. On 16.2.2008, another application was filed under Section 319 of the Code which was considered and rejected by the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order on the ground that the reasons assigned by court for rejection of the application is not proper and/or in accordance with law. Learned APP on the other hand, supported the impugned order. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Learned court below has first opined that any final view on the application filed by the petitioner at this stage may prejudice the case of the parties. However, since an application has been filed, the same has to be considered and disposed of. Learned trial court has found that the evidence of the 11 prosecution witnesses are at variance so far as the complicity of the accuseds sought to be summoned is/are concerned. Learned trial court has further noted that the materials on record reflect that the prosecution(s) have been launched by both the parties which are pending trial. It has taken a view that apart from the fact that the evidence is/are at variance, the evidence on record do not directly implicate the accuseds sought to be summoned in 3 the offence. Trial court further found that the same was lodged with a view to feed fat the grudge. It has also noticed that the trial is an old one where the evidence has already been led and it is for final disposal when such an application was filed. Section 319 of the Code has to be invoked in very rare and compelling circumstances and with all circumspection. The court can definitely invoke the said jurisdiction once it is satisfied that there is sufficient and convincing evidence on record justifying the invocation of jurisdiction. Learned court below in the impugned order has noticed that the evidence on record are contradictory to each other and they reflect the circumstances only. The case is at the advance stage. It appears the parties are interested in protracting the trial as a counter version of the present case is also pending trial in the court of law. On these conclusions, the court below has refused to allow the application. This Court does not find any patent illegality in such consideration of the matter meriting any interference. The application has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )