IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12125 of 2008 PREM NARAYAN SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02. 07.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.01.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 575 of 2007, whereby petitioners’ applications for discharge for offences under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. has been rejected. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials on record, it appears that petitioners were named in the F.I.R. but they were not sent up for trial by the investigating agency but learned Magistrate differed with the final form took cognizance. It also appears that father of the informant and the informant and other eye witnesses seen the occurrence whereas four witnesses examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also named petitioners as participating in the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has basically argued that they were not sent up for trial by the investigating agency and they have been falsely implicated due to the land dispute and 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses was recorded not on the request of the investigating agency but on the request of the - 2 - informant. At 227 Cr.P.C. level, the Court of Sessions has to be only satisfied of the sufficiency about the material and after examining the materials on record the impugned order appears to have been passed. The impugned order has been passed on 17.01.2008 and the present stage of the trial is not available before this Court. In view of the discussions made above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. However petitioners are at liberty to raise all their contentions about the false implications due to the land dispute during trial which will be considered on merits. The application stands dismissed. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)