IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24534 of 2008 Bipin Yadav, son of Jagdish Yadav, resident of village-Dharhara, P.S. Raghopur, District-Supaul. …………………………………………………………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Gayan Shankar Chaudhary, son of Balak Ram Chaudhary, resident of village-Dumari, P.S. Raghopur, District-Supaul. …………………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: M/s. Pramod Kumar Singh & Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. --------------------------------------- 3. 5.12.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 15.2.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Supaul, in Sessions Trial No.218 of 2007, rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that for convicting a person under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be proved that overt act was 2 done in furtherance of common intention or for attribution of some act with intention to commit the offence, but it will appear from the F.I.R. and the case diary that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and no overt act has been attributed to involve him in the alleged offence. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while conceding the submission of the leaned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., submits that it will appear from paragraph- 433 of the case diary that in course of investigation the involvement of the petitioner has come in hatching conspiracy to commit the alleged occurrence. It appears that on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Gayan Shankar Chaudhary, Raghopur P.S. Case No.47 of 2006 was instituted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act against the five accused, named in the F.I.R. It has been alleged by the informant in the F.I.R. that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he alongwith his brother, Bipin Chaudhary, nephew Aditya Kumar and others had gone in the market of Ganpatganj. His nephew Aditya Kumar, brother Bipin Choudhary and he sat at the Varamdah of Kedar Medical Hall, keeping the purchased articles in his Ambassador car 3 standing inside the Medical Hall. At that time, his co-villager Amrendra Chaudhary, was talking on his mobile with anyone Thereafter, on two motorcycles, Dhirendra Yadav, Bambam Yadav, Roshan Yadav and Sikandar Yadav alias Siken Yadav, armed with carbine came there. On the instigation of Amrendra Choudhary and the order of Sikandar alilas Siken Yadav, Dhirendra Yadav and Bambam Yadav made indiscriminate firing at his brother, Bipin Chaudhary. In spite of receiving gut shot injury, his brother fled towards the house of Rajesh Prasad Gupta but Sikandar Yadav, Roshan Yadav, Dhirendra Yadav and Bambam Yadav, on chase, made indiscriminate firing at him causing his death. It has also been submitted that the occurrence has also been seen by Sitaram Sharma, Sant Kothariya, Baoua Sharma, Md. Sageer and others. It appears from the impugned order dated 15.2.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- IV, Supaul, in Sessions Trial No.218 of 2007 that the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Supaul, on perusal of the F.I.R. and the case diary detailing some paragraphs of the case diary, came to the conclusion that there is sufficient material showing prima facie case under Sections 4 120-B and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Paragraph- 433 of the case diary, which is the statement of the witness, Sitaram Sharma, who is said to have seen the occurrence, has stated about the presence of the petitioner near the place of occurrence alongwith other accused. The presence of the petitioner has also been detailed by the witnesses in paragraphs-480 and 481 of the case diary. At the time of framing of charge, the trial court is only required to see whether there is substance showing strong suspicion about involvement of the accused in commission of the alleged offence. At that time, the trial court is not required to examine the statements of the witnesses like as trial. Under the aforesaid facts and the circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 15.2.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- IV, Supaul, in Sessions Trial No.218 of 2007, amounting to abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)