IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46459 of 2007 1.MD.MUSTAQUE ALI 2. Md. Mumtaz Ali Both sons of Amanat Ali , both are resident of village Mohan Barhiyam, P.S. Sakari,District Madhubani ------- Petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Md.Ayub son of Late Nabi Hassan Resident of village Mohan Barhiyam, P.S.Sakari, District Madhubani ------ Opp.Parties -------- For the petitioners : Mr.Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr.Adv. Mr.Gagandeo Yadav. For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, Addl.P.P. -------- 7. 4.10.2010. Heard Mr.Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.), have prayed for quashing of an order dated 15.9.2007 passed by Fast Track Court-I, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No.386 of 1998. By the said order the trial court has rejected a petition filed under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was argued by Mr.Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that both the petitioners were neither named in the first information report nor they were forwarded by the Police. During trial after examination of some witnesses, some materials were brought on record and thereafter the petitioners were summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial along with other accused persons. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners while challenging the order submitted that even the witnesses, who had made certain statements against the petitioners had not made such statements during investigation while their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that in the present case first information report was lodged long back in the year 1996 and after such delay it was not proper for the learned trial court to summon the petitioners to face trial along with other accused persons. Accordingly, prayer has been made to quash the impugned order. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the learned trial court while rejecting the discharge petition has discussed the entire evidence which were brought on record against the petitioners showing prima facie case of involvement of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the present case was of serious nature. In this case, charges against other accused persons were framed for the offences under Section 302 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the petition. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record particularly the impugned order. In the present case, the order whereby the petitioners were summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not under challenge. The only argument which was advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that 3 without any material, the learned trial court has rejected the discharge petition. Perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that there were specific statement of witnesses showing involvement of both the petitioners which were corroborated by the injury report. The trial Judge has examined each and every materials on record and thereafter assigning detailed reason has rejected the discharge petition. It need not to be elaborated that for the purpose of framing charge strongest suspicion is enough. I do not find any defect in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay dated 5.2.2008 stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)