IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15754 of 2008 Rajendra Yadav, Son of Late Dudheshwar Yadav, resident of Village- Saren, Police Station- Madhdumpur, District-Jehanabad -- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Srikant Singh, Son of Sri Vishnu Singh, resident of Tehta Math, P.S. Makhdumpur, District-Jehanabad ---- Opp.Parties. ----------- 02 28-06-2010 Heard Sri Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.M.P.Mehta, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , has prayed for quashing of the order dated 5.9.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No.122/04 ( arising out of Makhdumpur P.S. Case No.101 of 1997 ) by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge IV ( F.T. C.No.IV), Jehanabad . By the said order, the learned court below has allowed the petition of the prosecution filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the petitioner and other two accused persons to face the trial along with other accused persons. While pressing this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even during the trial no admissible evidence has been brought on record warranting/ summoning this petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge, while committing error on record, has passed the impugned order. It was submitted by Sri Singh that the learned Sessions Judge has said that P.Ws. 1,5,7,9 2 and 12 have named the petitioner as one of the accused. However, on the record except P.W.1 none has said anything in respect of this petitioner. It was further argued that whatever statement has come from the mouth of P.W.1 ( i.e. as hearsay), it has been stated by P.W.1 that she was told by her Dewar Arun Kumar that this petitioner was one of the assailant in the crime, in which her husband was killed. Accordingly, it has been argued that on such material, the learned trial court was not required to summon the petitioner and, as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was argued by him that even on the basis of strong suspicion, one can be prosecuted. In the present case, it was submitted that the petitioner was one of the named accused in the F.I.R. along with other, in which husband of P.W.1 was murdered. Accordingly, it has been submitted by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor to reject the petition. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record including the impugned order. At least P.W.1 has indicated regarding involvement of this petitioner and, as such, I am of the opinion that it would not be proper to interfere with the impugned order, which has been passed long back in the year 2007. Accordingly, I do not find any material on record warranting this Court to exercise inherent power in favour of the petitioner and the petition stands rejected. 3 However, this order will not prejudice the petitioner before the court below. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )