Patna High Court
Lalan Kunwar and AnrversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that the trial court did not act illegally in summoning the petitioners and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the order of the 10th Additional Sessions Judge that summoned them as accused under Section 319 CrPC in a murder trial. They argued that the police investigation found no substance in the informant's allegations, that only one eye‑witness (PW‑7) testified and did not implicate them, and that there was enmity between the informant and the petitioners. The State contended that the informant, who was also an eye‑witness, testified as PW‑9 and his statements, examined and cross‑examined, provided sufficient material to justify the summons. The High Court examined the FIR, the informant’s testimony and the trial court’s reasoning, and concluded that the evidence did not persuade it to find the summons illegal. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, holding there was no illegality in the trial court’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in exercising its power under Section 319 CrPC to summon the petitioners as accused.
- Whether the evidence, particularly the informant's testimony, is sufficient to justify the summons.
- Whether the petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the order should be entertained.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 319, 482
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Section 482
- Section 319
- Quash petition
- Murder trial
- Summons of accused
- Evidentiary sufficiency
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26673 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2014 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Lalan Kunwar son of Late Gauri Shankar Kunwar, Resident of Village-
Hazipur, Police Station-Kesariya District-East Champaran
2. Sanjay Gupta @ Sanjay Kumar Gupta, son of Hari Om Gupta, Resident of
Village-Siswa Patna,Police Station-Kesariya, District-East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Ram Vinod Singh, son of Chitranjan Singh, Resident of Village -Siswa
Patna, Police Station- Kesariya,District-East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 16-02-2026 The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been
filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order
dated 01.02.2016 passed by the 10th Additional Sessions Judge,
Motihari, East Champaran, in Sessions Trial No. 602 of 2014
(Arising out of Kesariya P.S. Case No. 02 of 2014), whereby
the petitioners have been summoned as accused by the trial
court while exercising the provisions of Section 319 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Cr.P.C.’).
2. Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26673 of 2016(4) dt.16-02-2026
2/3
appearing for the petitioners, submits that though the petitioners
were named in the FIR by the informant but after the
investigation the police did not find substance in the informant's
allegations concerned to the petitioners and accordingly, they
were not sent up for trial and in actual there was only one eye-
witness to the alleged occurrence, namely, Amrendra Singh
(P.W.-7) who did not name the petitioners as being involved in
the killing of the deceased and as per the evidence of P.W.-9,
which was mainly taken into consideration by the trial court, it
is an admitted position that there exists enmity in between the
petitioners and the informant and according to the FIR, P.W.-7
was already present at the place of occurrence when the
informant reached there, so, his evidence was more important
than that of informant and the said PW-7 did not reveal any role
of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence, hence, the learned
trial court did not exercise the power conferred under Section
319 of the Cr.P.C in a proper manner.
3. Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, learned counsel appearing
for the State, submits that there are sufficient materials against
the petitioners in the prosecution evidence adduced during the
trial and the most important evidence is the informant himself
who claims to be an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26673 of 2016(4) dt.16-02-2026
3/3
4. Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and the
relevant materials such as FIR and the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses adduced in the Sessions Trial No. 602 of
2014 which were taken into consideration by the trial court.
Both the petitioners are named in the FIR and the informant
claimed himself to be an eye-witness. During the course of trial,
he was examined as P.W-9. The allegations against the
petitioners find place in the statements made by PW-9 in his
examination-in-chief and on that aspect he was cross-examined
at length and the statements made by PW-9 in the cross-
examination are not of such nature as to persuade this court to
form an opinion that the petitioners were not involved in the
commission of the alleged murder. As such, this court finds no
illegality in the order impugned and finds no merit in this
application, so, it stands dismissed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/-
U T
Checking your session…