IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.29566 OF 2008 BISHNUDEO YADAV @BISHUNDEO YADAV, SON OF JITAN YADAV, VILLAGE HARISWADA, POLICE STATION KHAJAULI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. TULSI YADAV, SON OF LATE BALCHAND YADAV, VILLAGE HARISWADA, POLICE STATION KHAJAULI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI ………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES ******** 4 01/04/2010 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. B. N. P. Singh for the Opposite Party No. 2 and Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 01.03.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 610 of 2006 by which the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Madhubani has allowed the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution case is that seven persons named in the First Information Report including Bishundeo Yadav, who has been summoned to face trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were variously armed. Witnesses have disclosed that Bishundeo Yadav was armed with FARSA and he inflicted a FARSA blow on the informant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the power under Section 319 of the Code of 2 Criminal Procedure should be sparingly used and only in fit cases. It is also submitted that during investigation, the petitioner who is a Constable was found on duty in Samastipur. Referring to the First Information Report and the subsequent evidence that has come on record, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the First Information Report, the allegation is of a omnibus nature, whereas an exaggerated version has been put forth during trial. All these aspects will be considered during the trial of the case. I do not find it a fit case for interference with the order dated 01.03.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 610 of 2006. In the result, this application is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)