IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3301 of 2008 SHUBHASH YADAV ,S/o Devnandan Yadav, resident of Village- Mohanpur, Police Station-Sarmera, District-Nalanda ------------------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rajendra Singh S/O Late Bachchan Singh, resident of Village- Mohanpur,Police Station-Sarmera, District-Nalanda. -------------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- 2 22-01-2009 Heard Mr.Ashok Jang Bahadur, the learned counsel for the petitioner as alsoMr. R.B.Roy Raman, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner who is one of the F.I.R. named accused in Sarmera P.S. Case no.41 of 2004 registered under Sections 147,148,149,341,307 and 302 I.P.C. , as also Section 27 of the Arms Act has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 4.5.2006 passed therein by Sri R.B.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, whereby he has taken cognizance against the F.I.R. named accused. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent and as would appear from several paragraphs of the case diary he was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and his name has been dragged in on false allegation. Paragraphs of the case diary to show his alibi has been referred to. However, from perusal of the fardbeyan of Buchu Singh, the petitioner appears to have actively participated in the crime. It has been alleged that after brother of the informant had been caught hold of, accused Rakesh Kumar had fired at him from his rifle as a result whereof he fell down on the ground. Accused Guddu Yadav and - 2 - Rakesh then caught hold of both his hands and this petitioner as also Ram Badan caught hold of his legs and Sudhir Yadav caught hold of his head to facilitate Bijendra Yadav to cut his neck with a fasuli. The learned A.P.P. also referred to several paragraphs of the case diary which reveal the active complicity of the petitioner in the heinous crime. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find this to be an appropriate case for extending the benefit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. Accordingly his prayer for quashing of the order taking cognizance is hereby rejected and the application is dismissed. The alibi raised by him will be considered by the trial court at the relevant time. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-