IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5520 of 2009 1. Umesh Singh @ Umesh Prasad Singh, son of Shri Dashrath Singh, 2. Dashrath Singh @ Dashrath Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Prasad Singh both of village Babhanbigha, PS Barbigha, District Sheikhpura – Petitioners. Vs. The State of Bihar. 6 11.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed challenging the order, dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in Barbigha PS Case No. 178/2005 by which cognizance for the offences under sections 341, 504, 302, 120B/34 of the Penal Code read with section 27, Arms Act has been taken. The grounds for challenge are that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 2.9.2005 at 9.30 P.M. which fact was not denied by any of the parties and the FIR has been lodged on 3.9.2005 at 3.30 P.M. in which the petitioners along with two others, namely, Suresh Singh and Mahesh Singh have been named as accused. The petitioners have been assigned the role of holding the deceased, whereas Suresh Singh and Mahesh Singh are alleged to have fired on the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from the FIR there is no other material in the entire case diary to show that the petitioners were present at the place of occurrence. Referring to the station diary entry it is submitted that the Officer Incharge of the police station, after hearing the sound of firing, visited the place of occurrence and found the dead body. The family members of the 2 deceased were asked to give the name of the persons responsible for the crime. The informant and the other family members refused to do so, on the ground that they are waiting for their ‘Neta’ Sheo Kumar Singh, who had to be consulted before lodging of the FIR. This fact transpires from the station diary entry. It is submitted that there was a deliberate consultation, with the so called ‘Neta’ in order to implicate the petitioners, who did not belong to the same party as Sheo Kumar Singh. Counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from the FIR, there is no substantive material to support the allegations. Counsel for the informant, on the other hand, submits that one of the uncle (Mama of the deceased) has disclosed the name of these petitioners and assigned them the role of being member of the mob. It is also submitted that all the officers including the Investigating Officer did not support the involvement of the petitioners and the charge sheet was submitted on the orders of the Inspector General of Police. This court at this stage cannot evaluate the quality of evidence, or the lack of evidence, for the purpose of quashing the FIR. In the circumstances I do not find any merit in this case. It is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to exercise their statutory right to file a discharge petition, if so advised, which would be considered on its own merits. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)