IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.698 OF 2008 1. LAL BAHADUR SINGH, SON OF LATE BISHUNDEO SINGH 2. PREM KUMAR @ MUNNA SINGH, SON OF LAL BAHADUR SINGH 3. ABHAY KUMAR SINGH @ ABHAY SINGH, SON OF LAL BAHADUR SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE AKHTIYARPUR, PATERHA, P.S. SARAI, DISTRICT VAISHALI…………………………………………………………..…PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE I.G. PROSECUTION, BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI, HAJIPUR 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 4. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SARAI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 5. THE SPECIAL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE IST, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR THROUGH THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, PATNA HIGH COURT, PATNA 6. DEO LAL RAM, SON OF BHOLA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAIDPUR, PATERHA, POLICE STATION SARAI, DISTRICT VAISHALI…………………..RESPONDENTS -------- 6. 06.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Three petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 29.06.1994 as well as the order of framing charge dated 25.08.1995 and the entire proceeding pending against them. The primary ground for challenge to the order of cognizance and order of framing charge is based on an order of this Court as contained in Annexure-3. From this order it appears that the petitioners had moved this - 2 - Court in Cr.W.J.C. No.609 of 1993 which was disposed of by order dated 21.09.1993 holding that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in relation to the alleged offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). But the proceeding with regard to other offences was directed to continue in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in spite of such observation of this Court, cognizance was taken against the petitioners under the provisions of the said Act and charges were framed and petitioners were put on trial. He submits that order of framing charge against the petitioners under the provisions of the said Act is, therefore, vitiated. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner no.3 is a juvenile and, therefore, he could not be tried along with other accused persons. In the circumstances, he submits that the entire proceeding against petitioner no.3 - 3 - stands vitiated and the same is fit to be quashed. Learned counsel for the informant appears and informs this Court that trial of the petitioners is at the final stage and evidence of both sides have been closed and the case has been fixed for arguments. He submits that cognizance was taken against the petitioners in 1994 and charges were framed in 1995. But this writ application was filed in 2008. Therefore, at this belated stage, petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the order of cognizance and order of framing charge. This Court is in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the informant. Petitioners have sat over the matter for almost 14 years and then have moved this Court for quashing the order of cognizance. At such belated stage, this writ application should not be entertained by this Court specially when the case is at final stage before the trial court and is likely to be concluded very short. So far as submission of the learned - 4 - counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.3 is juvenile and, therefore, his trial along with other accused persons stands vitiated, is concerned, no material has been produced on record by the petitioners to show that this point was raised by the petitioners at any stage before the trial court. In absence of such claim, the trial court was not obliged to bifurcate the trial of the alleged juvenile from the trial of other accused persons and proceed in accordance with law separately in respect of the juvenile. Therefore, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no merit. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Since this Court has been informed that evidence has been closed and the case has been placed for final argument, the trial court will make all the endeavours to conclude the trial and pass judgment at an early date. It will be open to the petitioners to place fresh materials before the trial court, even now, in respect of juvenility of petitioner no.3. If such materials are produced before - 5 - the trial court before pronouncement of the judgment, the trial court will deal with the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)