MANISH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application preferred under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short 'CrPC'), the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-2nd, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 804 of 2006 arising out of Town (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 241 of 2001 by which he has allowed the application dated 25.03.2013 filed under Sec. 319 of the Crimial P.C. by the prosecution and summoned the petitioner and Raj Kumar Rai to face trial.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the informant of the case is an eye-witness to the occurrence. On his fardbeyan, a case under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (For short 'IPC') against Raj Kumar Rai @ Raju Rai and 16-17 unknown criminals was registered. The petitioner is resident of the same village where the informant resides. He was the Mukhiya of the village at that point of time and had some disputes with the informant's family.

(3.) It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is surprising that though known to the informant, the petitioner was not made a named accused in the FIR. Even after investigation, the police found the allegations to be false as against the petitioner and, hence, he was not sent up for trial. The police report submitted by the investigating agency was accepted by the learned Magistrate. Since the offence alleged was triable by the Court of Sessions, the jurisdictional Magistrate, before whom the police report was submitted, committed the case of the accused persons who were sent up for trial to the Court of Sessions. Even the Sessions Court did not take any cognizance of the offence against the petitioner in exercise of power under Sec. 193 of the CrPC. However, after the charges were framed and three witnesses were examined, the court below has erroneously summoned the petitioner to face trial.