IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15917 of 2008 1.KAPILDEO YADAV son of late Besar Yadav 2.Peyare Yadav son of Besar Yadav 3.Ranjeit Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar son of late Prayag Yadav 4.Arvind Yadav son of late Prayag Yadav All resident of village-Chhathiyari, P.S.-Karandey Dist.- Sheikhpura …… …..Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ….. ……Opp. Party. ----------- 2. 30.6.2010. Heard Mr. Durgesh Nandan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.11.2007 passed by Sri V.K.Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. V, Sheikhpura, in Sessions Trial No.306 of 2006 arising out of Ariari (Karendey) P.S. Case No.152 of 2005 registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said order the learned Additional Sessions Judge while exercising power under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has summoned the petitioners to face trial along with other accused persons. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners were made accused in the first information report. However, after investigation the police did not collect any material showing involvement of these petitioners and, as such, the police exonerated them from the charges, and forwarded two F.I.R named accused for facing trial, meaning 2 thereby that they were charge-sheeted. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and after completion of committal proceeding the trial had commenced and during trial while the witnesses were examined certain materials were brought on record indicating involvement of these four petitioners and thereafter, on petition was filed by the prosecution, the Additional Sessions Judge has summoned these petitioners to face trial. It was further argued that it is a peculiar matter that the petitioners, who were F.I.R. named accused even not forwarded for facing trial has been debarred from the remedy for arguing either at the time of committal proceeding or at the stage of discharge and even they were not entitled to challenge the order of cognizance. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, a person against whom, during investigation, materials are collected and are forwarded to face trial can avail remedy for arguing at the stage of committal proceeding or even at the stage of charge. Prima facie, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be interesting but the same is required to be rejected without any notice. The court is to proceed on the basis of statutory provision. Once there is provision under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon a person to face trial on the basis of evidence brought during trial, the court is required to proceed in accordance with law. In the present case altogether six witnesses were examined and out of them four witnesses have deposed disclosing involvement of these petitioners in the crime and, as such, I am of 3 the view that while passing the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has committed no error. I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)