IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36406 of 2008 Hare Ram Yadav S/o late Salabi Yadav, R/o Lal Singh Ke Dera, Niyajipur, P.S. Simri, District-Buxar. ………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Anil Pathak S/o Bishram Pathak. 3. Sanjay Pathak S/o Ras Bihari Pathak. Both Residents of Raghubansh Pathak Ke Dera Niyajipur, P.S.- Simri, District-Buxar. 4. Munna Pathak S/o Onkar Nath Pathak. 5. Sugan Pathak S/o Marmatama Pathak Both residents of Brahmchari Ke Dera, Niyajipur, P.S.-Simri, District-Buxar……(Accused)……… ……..Opposite 1st Parties. 6. Anjani Pathak S/o Gudri Pathak, R/o Village-Niyajipur, P.S.-Simri, District-Buxar. 7. Shambhu Pathak S/o late Lalan Pathak, R/o Raghubansh Pathak Ke Dera, Niyajipur, P.S.-Simri, District-Buxar. ….Opposite 2nd Parties ----------- 02 14.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2008 by which the Fast Track Court, IIIrd, Buxar is rejected the application filed on behalf of the informant to call Anjani Pathak and Shambhu Pathak to face trail. Learned counsel refers to the statements of PW-1 and PW- 2 who have stated the name of Shambhu Pathak in his examination in chief, but has not substantiated the said allegation. Later, in the cross examination he has named Anjani Pathak, without alleging anything against him. Similarly, PW-2 has taken name of four persons in his examination in chief and finally says that “ nks vU; vatuh ikBd ,oa “kEHkw ikBd Hkh vjgj [ksr ls fudy jgs Fks”. The evidence in Court 2 does not seem to have any substantive material against the opposite party, so that the court should call them to face trial under Section 319. The provision under Section 319 is a discretionary power given to the Court to consider summoning of any person as an accused, if, there is sufficient material to warrant such an order. The Court has found that the facts which have been allegedly against these two persons, is insufficient to warrant trail under Section 302/ 201 of the Indian Penal Code. As a result, this Court dismisses the application as sufficient grounds have not been made out for intervening with order of this Court. Safik (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)