IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11742 of 2008 1. Rajendra Mahto @ Rajendra Pd. Mahto, Son of Janaklal Mahto. 2. Chandra Prakash Mahto @ Bittu, Son of Rajendra Mahto. 3. Chanda Devi, wife of Rajendra Mahto. 4. Chhotu Mahto @ Ashwani Kumar, Son of Rajendra Mahto, All residents of Gareri Tola, Moferganj, P.S. & District-Katihar. ..........................Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Babu Lal Sharma, Son of Late Kailu Sharma, resident of Mohalla-Gareri Tola Mopherganj, P.S. and District- Katihar.................................................................Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 30.04.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite parties. The application is for quashing the order dated 18.12.2007 whereby the cognizance has been taken under Sections 323,427,379/34 of the Indian Penal Code in complaint case no. 1167 of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to paragraph no.3 of the complaint petition in which actually no offence has been alleged against the petitioners rather it is more in the nature of the apprehension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that the evidence is going on at 244 Cr.P.C.level. In view of the aforesaid submissions, I 2 am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. However, the petitioner will raise all his contentions at the time of framing of charges, if the charges have already not been framed. With this observation, this application is disposed off. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)