IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8102 of 2010 Mumtaz Khan, son of late Ashfaque Khan, village Chauresar, PO Ramdihra, PS Rohtas (Amjhore), district Rohtas – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Safique Alam @ Guddu, son of Late Somaru Khan, village Chudesar, Ps Amjhor, District Rohtas – opp. parties. 2 16.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 11.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas in S. T. No. 272/2009, arising out of Rohtas (Amjhore) PS Case No. 80/2007, by which the discharge petition has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, rather, it has specifically been stated that the banned Maovadi groups killed the deceased. During investigation the petitioner is also not named in the case. After about four and half months the petitioner’s name transpired in this case alleging that election was held six months prior to the occurrence for which 107 Cr.P.C. proceeding was initiated. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. which is at Annexure 2 does not indicate that the petitioner was one of the parties to the proceeding. In this manner, counsel for the petitioner points out that the very genesis of the occurrence and the motive for involving the petitioner has no leg to stand. According to counsel for the petitioner there is a deliberate attempt to involve the petitioner, so much so, that even in the protest petition at Annexure 3, the petitioner has not been named. 2 All these grounds can be raised by the petitioner at the time of the trial and perhaps may be good ground for consideration of his case viz-a-viz the allegations levelled. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. However the trial may be concluded expedited. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)