JUDGEMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. 1. All the four applications arise out of one order of the court below dated 31.1.2005 and involved common question of law and fact. So they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. All the six applicants have filed these four applications seeking quashing of entire proceeding before court below besides the order dated 31.1.2005 passed by learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. .202 of 2003 arising out of Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 40/2004 through which they have been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the prayer of Additional Public Prosecutor dated 12.10.2004. 3. The relevant facts of this case is that on the statement of one Poonam Kumar Mishra now deceased in Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 40/2002 was instituted against one Asmith Disuza and his few unknown associates (not named) alleging that eldest daughter of the informant Swarnima Payal aged 16 years, an examinee of 10+2 while being out of house to purchase some essentials on 10.3.2002 (Sunday) at about 7 P.M. but did not return. However, he could know from different sources that the named accused a teacher employed in nearby school and residing in hostel has kidnapped the girl with the help of his associates. After institution of case investigation proceeded, during which named accused was apprehended, victim was also recovered and her statement was also recorded under Sections 161, 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ultimately, charge sheet no.124/2002 was submitted on 20.8.2002 against Asmith Disuza, keeping the investigation pending on other points. However, on the original charge-sheet cognizance was taken and after commitment of the case trial proceeded by way of Sessions Trial No. 202/2003 wherein four witnesses were examined including the victim, her mother and investigating officer of the case, thereafter prayer was made by the prosecution to add as many as nine more persons who have been summoned by impugned order including these six petitioners. 4. It would not be out of place to mention here that subsequent to submission of 1st charge-sheet another charge sheet no. 4. It would not be out of place to mention here that subsequent to submission of 1st charge-sheet another charge sheet no. 104 dated 18.9.2004 was sub-mitted against one Meera Devi/Meera Singh but again keeping the investigation pending on other points and finally on conclusion of the investigation charge-sheet no.75/2005 dated 23.6.2005 was also submitted, exonerating other 8 persons including the petitioners of three cases, except Baleshwar Prasad Verma whose name never emerged earlier and remained subject to investigation. 5. Here, it would be also not out of place to mention that subsequent to filing of second charge-sheet again, cognizance was taken and after commitment of the case reasons best known to prosecution, and the court below one Sessions Trial No. 620/2004 proceeded separately for co-accused Meera Singh, wherein also the victim and her mother have been examined respectively as prosecution witnesses no. 8 and 7 on 11.11.2008 and 22.8.2008. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submitted that the court below while passing