IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.12822 OF 2005 1. SYED NAQUIBUDDIN @ NAQUIB MASTER 2. TANJEELUR RAHMAN 3. TANBEERUL RAHMAN 4. GOLU @ ATIKUR RAHMAN 5. AHMAD MIAN @ AHMAD HUSSAIN, ALL RESIDENTS OF BANSGHAT KONHIA, CHAKIYA, EAST CHAMPARAN. VERSUS 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SAFIR ALAM @ DHUMAN, BANSGHAT KONHIA, CHAKIYA. ----------- 8 19.01.2010. This Court vide order dated 13.11.2006 stayed further proceeding in Chakiya Police Station case no. 81/2004, and allowed one week time to the petitioners for filing requisites for issuance of notice to opposite party number 2, which was further extended by three weeks vide order dated 25.4.2007. It appears vide order dated 7.8.2008, the case stood dismissed as against opposite party number 2 for non compliance of the peremptory orders dated 13.11.2006 and 25.4.2007. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners have assailed order dated 17.2.2005, passed by Revisional court, namely, Additional Sessions Judge 3, (E.C.) Motihari, East Champaran dismissing Cr. Rev. No. 9 of 2005 filed by petitioners against order taking cognizance dated 20.12.2004. The learned Magistrate by order dated 20.12.2004 has taken cognizance of offence under sections 147,148,149,323,324,447,504 & 307 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that police - 2 - after investigation submitted charge sheet against three accused persons/petitioner nos. 2,3 and 4 (Tanjeelur Rahman, Tanbeerul Rahman and Golu under sections 447, 147 and 323. I.P.C., whereas final form was submitted against petitioner numbers 1 and 5. He further submit that Juber Alam did not sustain any fire arm injury and as such cognizance under section 307 and Arms Act is bad. He submits that Juber Alam sustained only cut injury and not fire arm injury. It is also submitted that there is a case and counter case and daughter of petitioner no.1 was killed for which Chakia Police Station case no. 80 of 2004 dated 20.9.2004 has already been instituted and in fact petitioner no.2 also sustained injuries in course of occurrence. He further submits that the instant case has been filed as a counter blast to the earlier case and even from the FIR of the instant case allegation is against petitioner numbers 3 and 4. petitioner no.1, aged about 70 years had rushed to save his daughter, whereas petitioner no.2 sustained fire arm injury. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as materials on record, order taking cognizance dated 19.2.2005 as against petitioner numbers 1 and 2 is hereby quashed. However, case will proceed against other petitioners. The instant petition stands allowed partly with the aforesaid directions. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)