IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.31312 OF 2008 BIMAL SINGH, SON OF BAIDYANATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAKRAMA, POLICE STATION HATHAURI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MAHESHWAR SINGH, SON OF LAKHI NARAYAN SINGH 3. CHANDESHWAR SINGH, SON OF LAKHI NARAYAN SINGH 4. SHASHI KUMAR @ BITTU, SON OF CHANDESHWAR SINGH 5. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF CHANDESHWAR SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAKRAMA, POLICE STATION HATHAURI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR ******** 2 28/06/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The informant has filed this application challenging the order dated 05.03.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur by which he has rejected the application filed on behalf of the informant under Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of submission of the charge sheet, a protest petition was filed on behalf of the informant stating therein that there are certain other persons who were involved in the occurrence, and who have been deliberately left out at the time of framing of the charges. It appears that the protest petition was not pressed or somehow was left unheard. In any event, charges have been framed and six witnesses have been examined in this case. In the application under Section 2 319 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court below has considered that none of the six witnesses have stated anything against the persons whom the informant wishes to charge for the alleged offences and as such, has rejected the application. I do not see any illegality in the reasoning given by the Court below while rejecting the application filed under Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code on behalf of the informant. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)