IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43332 of 2007 MD.SAJJAD ALAM @ SAJJAD ALAM, son of Md. Ilyas, resident of village- Ekdandi, P.S/- Parihar, District- Sitamarhi. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Md. Alamgir son of late Abdul Majid, resident of village- Demua, P. S. Parihar, District Sitamarhi. 3. Md. Neural Hoda son of late Wajul Haque. 4. Md. Gaffur Ansari son of Late Md. Khalil Ansari. 5. Md. Rahmat Ansari son of late Halim Ansari 6. Md. Ajim Ansari son of Md. Gaffur Ansari. Opposite party no. 3 to 6 are resident of village- Ekdandi Police Station Parihar, District- Sitamarhi. .. Opposite parties. ----------- 5. 19.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 6. The informant, petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order of the court below dated 27.7.2007 rejecting his prayer for summoning opposite party no. 3 to 6 as accused in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has moved this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though opposite party no. 3 to 6 were not named in the complaint petition but then they had also some involvement in the alleged offence inasmuch as they were the persons who had intimated the informant as with 2 regard to disposing of the dead body in course of getting its buried. In the opinion of this Court, the court below has dealt with this aspect in a graphic manner as would be evident from following passage of the impugned order:- “ ….It appears that during the investigation police has not found them accused in the case hence police have not submitted charge- sheet against them. After framing the charge prosecution has examined 4 witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution and few of them have stated about the involvement of these persons in disposing of the dead body of the victim. But all the P.W.’s have not said so. Case diary also says nothing acquisition against these persons. 4 P.W’s have already been examined and from the statement of these witnesses it is not clearly review that these persons were involved in disposing the dead body of the victim. Hence at this stage, I am not inclined to summon these accused for facing trial u/s- 319 cr.P.C. Thus, prayer of the prosecution is rejected…” That apart, this court has also gone into the allegations made in the complaint petition vis. a vis. those brought in evidence in the deposition of P. W. 1, 2 and 4 and from their perusal this Court is satisfied that any substantive offence was actually made against opposte party no. 2 to 6 inasmuch as the persons against whom there is specific allegation of misbehaving with the victim 3 deceased minor girl are already facing prosecution. In that view of the matter, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order specially when the court has made it clear that such prayer was rejected for that materials that was available “ at this stage”. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)