Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 12.1.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. Ill, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 1998, by which on remand, petition of the prosecution filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning these three petitioners has been allowed. 3. It appears that earlier petition under section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution which was rejected by the trial court by order dated 22.9.2001. Against the said order, prosecution party had moved this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 33544 of 2001. The said Criminal miscellaneous application was allowed by this Court by order dated 8.7.2004 and the order dated 22.9.2001 was quashed and the learned court below was directed to reconsider the matter and proceed in accordance with law. 4. On receipt of the said order of this Court, learned trial court issued summons to the petitioners under section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial. These petitioners, thereafter, moved the Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal Nos. 1082 and 1083 of 2006 against the order dated 8.7.2004 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 33544 of 2001. The Supreme Court by order dated 19.10.2006 disposed of the appeals and in view of the order of this Court directing the trial court to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders and also directed the trial court to consider the question in the light of the observations made in its order. The trial court was directed to consider the desirability of disposing of the matter as expeditiously as possible. 5. Accordingly, the matter again came up before the trial court and the trial court after noticing the background of the matter and the observations of the Supreme Court has passed its order dated 12.1.2007 allowing the application of the prosecution under section 319 Cr.P.C. 6. Facts of the case, as disclosed by the informant Prahlad Singh in his fardbeyan dated 16.7.1997, are that at about 8.00 A.M. he alongwith one Ranjit Singh (deceased) had gone to Durga Chowk to take tea at the grocery shop of Uchit Lai Mahto and asked for two cups of tea. After sometime they asked for another round of tea on which they were asked by Uchit Lai Mahto to come to the tea shop and take tea. After sometime they asked for another round of tea on which they were asked by Uchit Lai Mahto to come to the tea shop and take tea. Upon this, informant went to the shop. However, when Ranjit Singh (deceased) proceeded on the pucca road, he was suddenly surrounded by four accused persons including these three petitioners. Petitioner Anil Singh shot at the deceased with a countrymade revolver from behind upon which Ranjit Singh fell down and died. Thereafter, other two petitioners, namely, Biltu Mahto and Siyabar Singh gave a call not to spare the informant, upon which accused Pancha Mahto took out a chhura and started assaulting the informant in his stomach. Informant caught hold of the chhura by hand, due to which he suffered injury on his palm and avoided attack by Pancha Mahto by throwing a bench upon him. Informant, thereafter, fled away and went to the dispensary where he was given medical aid by the doctor. In the dispensary itself, the statement of the informant was recorded in which he specifically named all the four accused persons. In the fardbeyan informant also disclosed the names of the witnesses who had seen the occurrence. However, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against Pancha Mahto showing investigation pending against non-F.I.R. accused Ram Jatan Mandal. 7. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against Pancha Mahto and discharged these three petitioners. Thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial, charges were framed against Pancha Mahto and the case was fixed for evidence. 8. During evidence of prosecution, informant was examined as P.W. 2 and two named eye witnesses were examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 3. All the three witnesses have specifically named these three petitioners also alongwith charge-sheeted accused Pancha Mahto. 9. From the order impugned, it appears that the learned trial court has considered the evidence collected during trial and has found that these three petitioners alongwith Pancha Mahto have been specifically named in the F.I.R. and have also been specifically named by the witnesses during trial. As such, learned trial court has found sufficient reasons to proceed against these three petitioners also and therefore by order dated 12.1.2007 has issued summons to them to appear in the case and face trial. As such, learned trial court has found sufficient reasons to proceed against these three petitioners also and therefore by order dated 12.1.2007 has issued summons to them to appear in the case and face trial. From the order impugned, it appears that the trial court was satisfied with regard to sufficiency of materials collected during trial against these three petitioners and therefore has allowed the application of the prosecution under section 319 Cr.P.C. and has issued summons to these three petitioners. 10. From perusal of the impugned order and the discussions of the evidence therein, I find that the order of the trial court is in consonance with law and perfectly justified. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. 11. As the case is an old one, trial court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously and make all endeavours to conclude the same within six months.