IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42587 of 2007 1. JAGDISH YADAV @ GAJDISH PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE MUNI LAL YADAV. 2. SUJIT YADAV, SON OF SRI JAGDISH PRASAD YADAV. 3. KESHO YADAV, SON OF LATE RAMDHAN YADAV. 4. JAGDISH YADAV, SON OF LATE ANANDI YADAV. 5. SHIV KUMAR YADAV, SON OF LATE JAGDAMBI YADAV. 6. RAMDEO YADAV, SON OF LATE NEVA LAL YADAV. ALL 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-AMARPUR, P.S. SONBARSA KACHAHARI, DISTRICT-SAHAARSA. ………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. BIRENDRA NARAYAN SINGH, SON OF LATE MANGAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-HARIPUR, P.S. SONBARSA KACHAHARI, DISTRICT-SAHARSA. ……………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 6.1.2009. Heard Sri Bhola Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 26.7.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No.246 of 2005 by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Saharsa, whereby he has dismissed the petition of the petitioners filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for their discharge from the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. It appears that in the aforesaid Sessions Trial arising out of Saharsa (Sonbarsa Kachahari) P.S. Case No.559 of 1989 the police submitted a final form against the accused persons but the court having differed with the same took cognizance under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 379 I.P.C. and this order of cognizance was challenged by the petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.6370 of 2005 - 2 - which was dismissed by order dated 4.1.2006 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no injury report being available on the record a charge under Section 307 I.P.C. cannot be framed against the petitioners. This point was available to the learned counsel for the petitioners when they preferred Criminal Misc. No.6370 of 2005 but the same was never raised before that Bench. It would also appear from a perusal of the order passed in Criminal Misc. No.6370 of 2005 that this Court had approved the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate in view of his having found overwhelming materials in the case diary showing the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. There is also a reference to the report of the Superintendent of Police dated 2.12.1989 in which he found the allegations to be true against all the accused persons and the learned Single Judge was of the view that the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance did not suffer from any error so as to call for any interference. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)