IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.29881 OF 2008 PATI RAM SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM RAJ SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAYKA BARKA BAIJU TOLA, POLICE STATION REVILGANJ, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA ……………………………………………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BHOLA NATH SINGH, SON OF LATE UMRAW SINGH 3. URMILA DEVI, WIFE OF BHOLA NATH SINGH 4. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH, SON OF BHOLA NATH SINGH 5. RUBBI KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF BHOLA NATH SINGH 2 TO 5 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMGARH, POLICE STATION MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT SIWAN. AT PRESENT GIDDI C KOILARI, C.C.L. ARGADDA AREA, POLICE STATION GIDDI, DISTRICT HAZARIBAGH (JHARKHAND) 6. SIMA DEVI, WIFE OF SANTOSH SINGH, DAUGHTER OF BHOLA NATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAYKA BARKA BAIKU TOLA, POLICE STATION REVILGANJ, DISTRICT SARAN. AT PRESENT, GIDDIC KOILARI C.C.L. ARGADDA AREA, POLICE STATION GIDDI, DISTRICT HAZARIBAGH (JHARKHAND) ………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* 2 23/06/2011 This application has been filed challenging the order dated 01.02.2008 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Criminal Revision No. 49 of 2007 affirming the order dated 04.01.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 630 of 2005 (Trial No. 2825 of 2007) by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Saran has rejected the application filed on behalf of the complainant to summon the accused mentioned in the complaint petition who had been discharged and against whom cognizance was not taken under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the Courts below have rejected the 2 application of the petitioner on the ground that once the persons have been discharged for the alleged offences during the proceedings of the case and the Court had not found that the said persons are involved in the alleged occurrence, no summons can be issued under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )