IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2799 of 2011 1. RAJENDRA MAHTO SON OF LATE NARAYAN MAHTO. 2. RAMBABU MAHTO S/O RAJENDAR MAHTO 3. RAM ANIS MAHTO S/O RAJENDAR MAHTO. 4. LAL BABU MAHTO SON OF RAJENDAR MAHTO 5. TUNTUN S/O RAJENDAR MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PIPRA DEHA P.S. BARAUNI DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. 6. SURENDAR MUBSHI,, S/O LATE MADAN SINGH 7. GORALAL SINGH SON OF LATE SITARAM SOGI. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- THUKHRI, P.S. BARAUNI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM NANDAN YADAV S/O LATE BRAHMDEO YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PIPRADIH, P.S. BARAUNI DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. ----------- 2 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State. The order of summoning passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Begusarai on 06.10.2009 in Complaint Case No. 2008/2009 is sought to be quashed by preferring the present petition. The short facts of the case stated in the complaint petition are that the complainant’s father, not being ready to pay Rs. 50,000 as Rangdari, the accused persons came on the date of occurrence to the house of the complainant to take away the she-buffalo. The complainant stated that he along with the witnesses went to the house of the accused Rajendra Mahto to request the accused to release the buffalo, but that was not done and was assaulted by fists and slaps. 2 The complainant stated that he went to the police station and filed a written report, but that was returned and thereafter he sent an information to the S.P. on 15.07.2009 and finding that no action was taken, the present complaint petition was filed by him. The learned Magistrate, after examining the couple of witnesses, passed the order impugned. The submission was that the witnesses also stated that they did not indeed know as to why the accused committed the offence and further that the complaint petition was filed after some delay giving sufficient reason to infer that it was for some unknown reason so as to harassing the accused persons. The delay has been explained by the complainant in his complaint petition. Moreover filing of delayed complaint petition is never known to be a good ground or even as a valid ground for quashing the summoning order. If the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation together with the statements made by the witnesses indicated that some offence appears to had been committed by the accused, then it could be said that there was sufficient ground for summoning the accused persons and that such order could be passed. It is trite law that inherent improbability or patent absurdity of the allegations, together with allegations or 3 the facts alleged making out no case and in case of the same being time barred or in case of the prosecution suffering from any legal infirmity are known to be good grounds for quashing a summoning order. None of the above grounds are available to the present set of petitioners as the Magistrate has considered the materials which are required to be considered by him while passing the impugned order. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings and as such dismisses the petition on merits. Amrendra/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)