IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.8955 OF 2008 RAJ PRATAP MAHTO, SON OF SHRI RAM EKABAL MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATKENWA, POLICE STATION MAHUAWA (CHHAURADANO), DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM EKBAL MAHTO @ BAROOD MAHTO, SON OF JALESHWAR MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELAHIYA, POLICE STATION DARPA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 3. WIFE OF RAM EKBAL MAHTO @ BAROOD MAHTO ……………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* 2 19/02/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Opposite Party No. 2 and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the part of the order dated 10.09.2007 by which Ram Ekbal Mahto and the wife of Ram Ekbal Mahto has not been found to be involved in this case. These two persons are the cousin father-in-law and cousin mother-in-law of the deceased lady. The witnesses have consistently stated that these two persons are separate and have no concern with the immediate in- laws of the deceased and on that basis the final form was submitted and the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul, East Champaran, Motihari found that there is no reason to defer with the findings of the Investigating Officer. Against the order dated 10.09.2007, the informant filed a Criminal Revision which was disposed of on 03.11.2008. The Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari has also come to a finding that infact the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 are not involved in the alleged 2 occurrence and have no direct connection with the immediate sasural of the deceased lady. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/informant submits that he was not given notice before the final form was accepted. This Court gave the petitioner an opportunity to explain as to why these two persons should be arrayed as accused persons in this case. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, they were also family members and were responsible for instigating the other family members to kill the deceased lady. I find that the statements in the case diary as referred to by the Sessions Judge clearly show that the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 were living separately and were not involved with the deceased, her husband or her in-laws. I find that it would be an abuse of the process of law if these orders are set aside. I am satisfied that no grounds are made out for summoning the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 to face trial at this stage of the case. This application is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)