IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.31004 of 2009 1. Vijay Ram, Son of Moti Ram. 2. Dharmendar Ram, Son of Moti Ram. 3. Chattu Ram, Son of late Butan Ram. 4. Ram Prasad Ram, Son of Moti Ram. All residents of village – Purana Haripur, Police Station – Koilwar, District – Bhojpur, Ara. …………… Petitioners. Versus The State of Bihar ……….. Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- 02/ 08.12.2011 Heard Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) against the order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge Vth, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 510 of 2008, whereby the trial Court has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code for discharge. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused persons had entered into the house of the informant and had assaulted the family members including the mother of the informant, who later succumbed to her injuries. It is alleged that since the informant had protested against her harassment by one of the accused and in which connection her father had raised objections against the actions, hence, the accused persons in order to settle the score had assaulted the family members of the informant resulting in the death of her mother. After investigation police had submitted final form. 2 However, the learned Magistrate differing with the same had taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioners and the matter had been committed to the Sessions for trial. A petition under Section 227 of the Code was filed on behalf of the petitioners raising an issue of lack of evidence and the same having been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge Vth, Ara, hence this present application. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the substance of allegations as set out in the F.I.R. placed at Annexure-1 of the application as also the impugned order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Vth, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 510 of 2008, it is manifest that the application for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners was rejected by the learned lower court after examining the materials that had transpired during the course of investigation and considering the seriousness of the allegations. I find no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the learned court below. The application is dismissed. DKS/ (Jyoti Saran, J.)