The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the requirement for reasonable material and probability of conviction before summoning a person to face trial.

Heard Shri Arun, learned, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shailendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 6.

2. The petitioner, who was informant in Sessions Trial No. 522 of 2007 arising out of Bishambherpur P.S. Case No. 12 of 2007 registered for the offence under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has approached this Court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 4.11.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 522 of 2007, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning opposite party nos. 2 to 6 to face trial alongwith accused Parsuram Prasad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the F.I.R. itself, there was specific allegation against all the accused persons in committing crime. However, police with a view to favour the accused persons, submitted charge-sheet against only one accused, who was the main accused, namely, Parsuram Prasad and other accused persons, who are opposite party nos. 2 to 6 were exonerated by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner, after filing of the final report against opposite party nos. 2 to 6, had also filed objection petition and subsequently, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning all the six accused persons i.e. opposite party nos. 2 to 6. However, the said petition was earlier dismissed on 27.1.2009 granting liberty to file such petition at appropriate stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the main accused i.e. Parsuram Prasad was put on trial, all the witnesses categorically disclosed the fact showing involvement of opposite party nos. 2 to 6. After being fully satisfied that evidence brought during the trial was sufficient for coming to the conclusion of probability of conviction of opposite party nos. 2 to 6, again a petition under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. However, the learned trial Judge, in a mechanical manner only on the basis of evidence of Investigating Officer, who was none else than the person who had earlier favoured the accused persons, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the petition. It was submitted that the evidences, which have been brought during the trial, are sufficient to form a reasonable opinion for probability of conviction of the accused persons, but in a mechanical manner, the learned trial Judge has rejected the same. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside the order and direct the learned court below to summon all the accused persons i.e. opposite party nos. 2 to 6.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 6 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It was submitted that right from the very beginning, the informant was unnecessarily raising the plea of involvement of opposite party nos. 2 to 6. It was submitted that in the case, evidence of only five witnesses may not be looked into isolation but it was necessary to examine evidence in its totality. The Investigating Officer has categorically stated that there was land dispute in between the parties. Learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 further submits that evidences brought on record are not sufficient for conviction of opposite party nos. 2 to 6. It was further submitted that evidences brought on record are general and omnibus and those evidences are not sufficient for forming an opinion for convicting the opposite party nos. 2 to 6.

5. In support of argument, learned counsel has referred to a judgment of Apex Court reported in 2009(1) PLJR 167 (Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Am. VS. State of Jharkhand). Specifically paragraph-15 of the aforesaid judgment has been referred. For just d