IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10324 of 2007 DARWARI RAI & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5 02-09-2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Through this application the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 9.11.2006 passed in Complaint Case No.228 (C) of 2006 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 379, 452/34 and other allied Sections of the Penal Code against the petitioners. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that this complaint case has been filed by way of a counter blast to Title Suit No.32 of 2006 filed by him for specific performance of contract which was pending before the learned Subordinate Sub Judge-I, Danapur. It has also been submitted that from the averments made in the complaint no case at all can be said to have been made out against the petitioners who are of the same family and have been dragged in perforce. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners happen to be their defence which cannot be looked into at this stage. In the case of Chandradeo –Vrs. Prakash Chandra, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430, the Apex Court has categorically observed that - 2 - in a case arising out of a complaint petition the court while taking cognizance cannot look beyond any other matter save and except what has come in evidence in course of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. . Looking into any other matter than the evidence that has come in course of enquiry would amount to looking into extraneous matter. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the law, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all these issues at the time of framing of charge. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) NKS/-