IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5429 of 2011 Sheo Nandan Prasad @ Sheo Nandan Chaudhary & Anr Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Laxmi Kant Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Matloob Rab, A.P.P. ----------- 2 12.10.2011 Supplementary affidavit has been filed which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P. Earlier petitioners had challenged the order dated 27.01.2011 passed by learned lower court through which his prayer for discharge was rejected and subsequently, by supplementary affidavit also challenged the order dated 23.08.2011 whereby and where under the learned court had framed charge against the petitioners and others under Section 323/34, 341/34, 379/34, 504/34, 324/34, 325/34 of the I.P.C. During course of assailing the composite order, the learned counsel for the petitioners impress upon the court to consider and scrutinize 2 the statement of the witnesses like a trial court, which, for the present purpose, would not be in spite of the fact that court is adjudicating upon the matter under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Apart from this, charge has already been framed, consequent thereupon the trial is in progress. The discrepancy and inconsistency having amongst the statement of the witnesses which has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners would be a better recourse for the petitioner to sack the testimony at an appropriate stage but so far present stage is concerned, the same is not going to lean in his favour. Accordingly, petition is disposed of in the light of aforesaid observation. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)