IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53237 of 2007 1. SHANKAR MAHATO SON OF LATE LAXMAN MAHATO 2. CHAMPA DEVI WIFE OF SHANKAR MAHATO 3. HANSRAJ MAHATO SON OF SHANKAR MAHATO 4. ANITA DEVI WIFE OF HANSRAJ MAHATO 5. SHAMBHU THAKUR SON OF PAHWARI THAKUR 6. KISHORE MAHATO SON OF JATAHI MAHATO 7. JATIYA DEVI WIFE OF TILAK MAHATO 8. SHAMBHU MAHATO SON OF RAMPRIT MAHATO @ KIRAT MAHATO 9. AKHILESH MAHATO SON OF SHANKAR MAHATO, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAE BAKHARI PACHRUKHIYA, P.S. GOBARDHANA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN … PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUNITA DEVI WIFE OF RAM VINAY MAHATO, DAUGHTER OF GOPAL MAHATO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAKHARI PACHRUKHIYA, P.S. GOBARDHANA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN … OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4. 23.4.2010 The petitioners, who have been summoned u/s.319 Cr.P.C. by an order dated 6.10.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Bagaha to face trial in Trial No.1520 of 2006 corresponding with Trial No.1319 of 2007, seek quashing of the same on the ground that they have been summoned while the investigation was still pending against them and the petitioners being accused in the initial complaint did not come within the purview of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The prosecution case is that the complainant/informant was duped by co-accused Ram Vinay Mahto into establishing physical relationship, on account of which she gave birth to a baby. The petitioners being the family members of Ram Vinay Mahto coerced the informant to sign on some documents showing that she had divorced him - 2 - and the baby is an illegitimate child. After close of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against Ram Vinay Mahto, whereas investigation continued with regard to the rest. In the mean while the court took cognizance against Ram Vinay Mahto only and put him on trial. When the trial proceeded, three witnesses were examined including the informant, who disclosed the complicity of the present petitioners in the occurrence. In the light of such evidence, the court issued summons to the present petitioners to face trial u/s.319 Cr.P.C. The opposite party no.2 was noticed by an order dated 11.2.2009 and has appeared before this Court. The submissions of the petitioners are two folds: Firstly that since the investigation against the petitioners was continuing, the court could not have summoned them u/s.319 Cr.P.C. and secondly that since Section 319 Cr.P.C. specifies that only “any person not being the accused” can be proceeded against, the petitioners having been accused initially could not be summoned. In my view, both the contentions are totally erroneous since there is no bar in summoning an accused if there is evidence against him during trial under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The law is well settled on the second contention as well that even a person, who was an accused, initially could be summoned u/s.319 Cr.P.C. and - 3 - there is no bar with regard to the same. In the result, I find no merit in the application. The application is dismissed. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )