IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12573 of 2008 1. VIVEKA YADAV 2. Murari Yadav, Both sons of Shri Chandershekhar Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla- Awas Board, Police Station-Mufassil, Khagaria, District- Khagaria ------------- Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 21-06-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Two 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 18.2.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No.132 of 2000/ 175 of 2004 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.No.IV, Khagaria . By the said order, the learned trial court, while exercising power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has summoned the petitioners to face the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while pressing the present petition, submits that the learned Judge has not exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law. He further submits that while summoning the petitioners, the learned Judge has examined the statements of witnesses, which were recorded during the investigation as well as statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which too was recorded while investigation was going on. He submits that the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised sparingly and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the particular case. 2 According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there was no material on record to show involvement of the petitioners and for summoning them to face the trial in a case, in which occurrence had taken place in the year 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that at the time of occurrence, he was posted far away from the place of occurrence. He was posted as Medical Officer at Narpatganj, whereas the occurrence had taken place at Khagaria. Mr. A.M.P.Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the prayer of the petitioners, submits that so far the question of alibi is concerned, such plea can be taken during the trial and this is not the stage. He further submits that from the impugned order, it is evident that three witnesses have categorically stated indicating involvement of both the petitioners in the occurrence. In the case, F.I.R. was lodged for the offences under Sections 147,148,149, 341,323,326, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, he has prayed to reject the present petition. After hearing the parties and considering the materials available on the record, particularly the impugned order, which categorically indicates that three witnesses during the trial have stated that the petitioners had participated in the occurrence. Accordingly, I do not find that the learned Sessions Judge has committed any error, while passing the impugned order. I do not find any merit in the petition and the petition stands rejected. Keeping in view the fact that the occurrence had taken 3 place long back in the year, 1997, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )