IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.53120 of 2008 1. Bhuli Singh @ Buli Singh @ Musi Singh, son of Sheo Bachan Singh, resident of Village-Kawai (Maliyabagh), P.S. Dawath, District-Rohtas. 2. Sunil Singh alias Sunil Kumar Singh, son of Rajeshwar Singh, resident of Village-Mohanpur, Tola-Kailashpur. 3. Ram Ganesh Singh, son of Late Keshwar Singh, resident of village-Kailashpur. 4. Mahendra Singh, son of Siri Singh, resident of village- Rampur. 5. Murli Singh alias Muni Singh, son of Radha Singh. 6. Manoj Kumar Singh alias Manoj Singh, son of Rajeshwar Singh. Both resident of village-Kailashpur. 7. Lal Mohar Singh, son of Late Shyam Sunder Singh, resident of village-Raman Dihra. All at Serial Nos.2 to 7 are under Police Station-Kudra, District-Kaimur. ………………………………………………Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Ramayan Singh, son of Sita Ram Singh, resident of village-Salthua, P.S. Kudra, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua). ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Shubhash Kumar No.1, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P. -------------------------------------- 3. 5.9.2011. Heard. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing the order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast 2 Track Court No.II, Kaimur at Bhabua, in Sessions Trial No.233 of 2007, whereby the charge has been framed against all the 10 accused including the petitioners. By the said order, the charge has been framed against the petitioner no.1 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act whereas against the petitioners no.2 to 7 under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that Criminal Misc. No.56486 of 2006 was earlier filed on behalf of the petitioners before this Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.1.2007 with liberty to the petitioners to raise all these issues at the time of framing of charge but due to misunderstanding the petitioners could not raise the issues at the time of framing of the charge. There is nothing in the impugned order to show the abuse of the process of the court and on the score that the petitioners could not file the application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge, the order under challenge cannot be 3 quashed. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)