IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3317 of 2010 Ram Ashish Mishra, son of Brahmdeo Mishra, Resident of Village-Chandrasaina, P.S. Pupri, District- Sitamarhi. -- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Dinesh Chaudhary, son of Bindeshwar Chaudhary, Resident of Village-Dharampur, P.S. Pupri, District- Sitamarhi. -- Opposite Party. ----------- 02. 05/02/2010 In this application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 04.06.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No.59 of 2009, whereby he has declined to entertain an application under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On a perusal of the order impugned, it is noticeable that the learned trial Judge has considered the materials on record and has addressed himself to the law laid down by the Apex Court and has expressed the view that there was no justification to discharge the petitioner. Criticising the aforesaid order it is contended - 2 - by Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that the final form was submitted, but eventually cognizance was taken; that the daughter of the informant died of the snake bite; and that the petitioner had no role in the crime. After hearing Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mayanand Jha, learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the considered opinion grounds that have been ascribed by the learned trial Judge are not in the arena of any kind of perversity and based on certain facts. I am disposed to think this is not a fit case where an order of discharge is to be passed. Accordingly, the present application, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Sunil (Dipak Misra, CJ.)