IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15539 of 2010 1. HARGISH RAI S/O LATE RAM ROOP RAI 2. DEVENDRA RAI 3. SURENDRA RAI BOTH S/O HARGISH RAI 4. HARDEO RAI S/O LATE RAM ROOP RAI 5. CHUNCHUN RAI S/O HARDEO RAI 6. JAGDISH RAI S/O LATE RAM ROOP RAI 7. SATAN RAI @ SATYA NARAIN RAI S/O JAGDISH RAI 8. RAJ KUMAR @ RAJ KUMAR RAI S/O SATAN RAI @ SATYA NARAIN RAI ALL R/O VILLAGE- BARMATPUR KHABARA, P.S.- SADAR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ………………… Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …………. Opposite Party ----------- 2. 03.01.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 3.2.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.5, Muzaffarpur in S.Tr. No. 681 of 2007 by which he has refused to discharge the petitioners in which cognizance was taken under Section 307 I.P.C. The petitioners seek quashing of the order on the ground that simple injury was sustained by the injured which was not specifically attributed to the petitioner nos. 1,3,4,6,7 and 8 and there was discrepancy in the medical report and, therefore, no charge under Section 307 I.P.C. should have been framed. In my view, these are not matters which could be appreciated at this stage since the meticulous examination of the prosecution case cannot be held in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of such, the application is dismissed. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J. )