IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.7306 of 2010 1. SATYENDRA PRASAD, SON OF TULSI SAO 2. JAWAHAR PRASAD, SON OF DWARIKA PRASAD 3. SHAMBHU PRASAD, SON OF MAHENDRA PRASAD 4. RAJ KUMAR SAO, SON OF BUTUMAL SAO 5. BHAGWAN SONAR, SON OF TULSI SAO 6. LAXMI KESHARI @ LAXMI PRASAD, SON OF MADHO PRASAD 7. LAXMAN SAO, SON OF MITHAN SAO 8. RAM PRAVESH TELI, SON OF LATE KISHUN SAO 9. BANDHU PRASAD, SON OF BHAGWAN SAO 10. PREM PRASAD, SON OF LAGAN PRASAD 11. BUTAN CHOUDHARY, SON OF DHARITARAN CHOUDHARY 12. AMARNARH PRASAD @ AMARNATH SONAR SON OF RAMESHWAR SAO 13. AJAY KUMAR SON OF LAL BIHARI PRASAD 14. BINOD KUMAR SON OF GARIBA PRASAD 15. HARIHAR PRASAD SON OF BANSHI SAO 16 LAV KUSH @ LAVKUSH PRASAD, SON OF VISHWANATH PRASAD ALL ABOVE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE –BAIDRABAD, POLICE STATION-ARWAL, DISTRICT ARWAL 17. JAY PRAKASH KHATRI, SON OF VISHUNDEO KHATRI, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-ARWAL, POLICE STATION ARWAL, DISTRICT ARWAL 18. GOPAL PRASAD SON OF RAMU PRASAD 19. SHAMBHU KUMAR SON OF RAJENDRA SAO 20. BALI RAM SAO @ BALRAM SAO SON OF NAGESHWAR SAO, SL NO. 18 TO 20 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- BAIDRABAD, POLICE STATION & DISTRICT ARWAL 21. DR. BAIJNATH PRASAD SON OF MAHESHWAR NARAYAN SAO 22. RAM CHANDRA PRASAD @ RAM CHANDRA SAO SON OF RAM KISHUN SAO, BOTH SL. NO.21 TO 22 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE ARWAL, POLICE STATION ARWAL, DISTRICT ARWAL 23. BALDEO PRASAD BALDEO SAO SON OF NAGINA PRASAD 24. JAGDISH PRASAD @ JAGDISH SAO, SON OF KANHAIALAL PRASAD 25. JITENDRA JAUHARI SON OF JAMUNA JAUHARI, SL. NO.23 TO 25 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BAIDRABAD, POLICE STATION & DISTRICT ARWAL ... PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ... OPP. PARTY ----------- 2 2 For the petitioners :- Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. M. N. Jha (A.P.P.) --------- 2 28.09.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 4.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Court No.2, Jehanabad, in Sessions Trial No.20 of 2006/ 60 of 2010. It has been submitted that even though the occurrence had taken place on 31.03.1986, but even after 23 years of institution of the same no positive progress in the trial had taken place. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that from the facts of the case it appears to be just a case of mass protest and none of the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. is made out against the accused persons. Considering the same, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 04.02.2010, in S. Tr. No. 20 of 2006/ 60 of 2010 arising out of Arwal P.S. Case No. 52 of 1986, pending before the Additional Sessions 3 3 Judge, (FT.C-2) Jehanabad, is hereby quashed. The application stands allowed. Ashwini/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)