Judgment Rekha Kumari, J. 1. This is an application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 26.5.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court No. II, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 746 of 2003 by which he has directed to issue summons against the petitioners under Sec. 319 of the Code. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the original prosecution story, the daughter of the informant was taken away by one Amanat Mian. In course of investigation, specially in the statement of the victim girl recorded u/s. 161 of the Code, it transpired that one Chhotu Mian was also involved in thesaid crime of kidnapping the girl. Chargesheet was submitted against these two persons and the cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of Session and the trial begun. In course of trial the witnesses were examined and on the petition filed by the informant u/s. 319 the learned trial court directed to issue summons against these two petitioners Upendra Yadav and Shashikant Yadav. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the informant or the victim girl never, in course of investigation, disclosed the names of these two petitioners and they, for the first time, in the trial court in course of their evidence named the petitioner also as the persons who were also involved in the kidnapping of the victim girl and committing rape on her. He further submitted that this evidence is entirely contradictory to the statement given before the police u/s. 161 of the Code. In fact, the present case is nothing but an after thought to implicate these petitioners also in this case on account of previous enmity. He also submitted that in the present case altogether seven witnesses were examined and the trial was almost to conclude, when the informant filed the petition just to hafass the accused persons facing trial. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also referred to the F.I.R. of Khaira (Jamui) P.S. Case No. 115/2000 and submitted that a case was filed by one of the petitioners of this case against the informant and others and after expiry of 3-4 months of filing of this F.I.R., the informant and his daughter intentionally included the names of these two petitioners also in their evidence. 4. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that a bare perusal of the evidence of the seven witnesses recorded by the trial court so far, would disclose complicity of these accused persons also in committing the offence of kidnapping as also the offence of committing rape. He further submitted that at the time of passing an order u/s. 319 of the Code the Court is only to consider whether there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners to show her involvement in the case. It has transpired in course of evidence that the victim girl was examined u/s. 164 of the Code and there also she had stated the names of the two accused facing trial and these two petitioners which corroborate her evidence in Court. There was a petition also filed by the informant in the court below itself that the case was not being investigated properly by the officer-in-charge. The factum of false implication of the petitioners in the present case on account of filing of the F.I.R. by one of the petitioners against the informant, can only be judged in course of trial and the petitioners can taken the benefit of the said fact at the time of disposal of the case. The reliability of this F.I.R. can be seen at the time of trial only. 5. After perusal of the entire evidence, copies of which were produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in Court, it appears that the girl who is the most competent witness has stated that the petitioners also had kidnapped and raped her. The girl had also given statement u/s. 164 of the Code in which she had named these two petitioners also as an accused in the case, so her evidence is corroborated by her previous statement. Hence, I do not find that the learned trial court has committed any error in passing the impugned order. 6. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this application. This application is accordingly dismissed.