IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10044 of 2008 Surendra Kuer @ Surendra Kr.Singh @ Surendra Singh, S/o. Late Raghunath Kuer, R/o. – village Chakia, P.S. – Panapur, District – Saran at Chapra. ……………… Petitioener Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Manan Singh, S/o. Late Baijnath Singh. R./o. village Chakia, P.S. Panapur, Distt. Saran at Chapra. ……………….. Opp. Parties. ----------- 02/ 14.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 25.01.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC IV, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 1999 arising out of Panapur P.S. Case No. 208 of 1996 by which he has rejected the petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. It is alleged that the order has been passed mechanically though the detail order has been passed on 25.01.2008, after considering submission of the petitioner which were found to be false. During the session trial, five persons have been examined and they have named the petitioner, therefore, the application of the petitioner was rejected. However, in the peculiar circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was instituted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in which though the petitioner was named in the FIR but charge sheet was not submitted against the petitioner though submitted against other accused persons and hence, the cognizance was taken against the persons who were sent up for trial and not against the petitioner. However, subsequently during the trial five witnesses were examined and four named this petitioner and hence the petitioner was called under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. After the petitioner was summoned under Section 319 of 2 the Cr.P.C. the petitioner preferred a criminal miscellaneous petition before the Hon’ble High Court and though the stay was granted, however, the said case was dismissed for default even vacating the stay for non prosecution and non appearance of this petitioner and then the petitioner instead of preferring any petition for restoration appeared before the lower court after getting anticipatory bail from the High Court, filed a petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. However, the procedure appears to be unknown and since the lower court having taken into consideration the fact that those five witnesses have been examined and four of them have named the petitioner with their implication in crime. Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition and hence the same is hereby dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)