IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.9891 of 2008 1. RIZWAN, S/O BASHIR 2. IBRAN @ IMRAN, S/O BASHIR 3. SALMAN, S/O BASHIR 4. ZISHAN, S/O RIZWAN 5. FAIZAN, S/O RIZWAN 6. ALIMAN, S/O OF RIZWAN 7. SUFIYAN, S/O IBRAN 8. ALISHAN, S/O IBRAN 9. EHSAN, S/O IBRAN 10. SHOBAN, S/O SALMAN ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BHARWARA, P.S. SINGHWARA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. JAMSHAID, S/O LATE MD. SHOAIB, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHANWARA, P.S. SINGHWARA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** /2/ 03.05.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order, dated 19.04.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, in C.R. Case No. 1191 of 2006/T.R. No. 436 of 2007 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offence under sections 341, 323, 448, 384, 504, 506 and 380 of the Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier a complaint case was filed with regard to the occurrence, dated 18.08.2005, and the said complaint petition was sent for institution of first information report under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and, thereafter, a final form was submitted which was accepted. Further, again, after two months the complainant filed a complaint petition on 2 18.08.2005 as well as for occurrence of 25.08.2005, the same was, again, sent for institution of first information report and again the final form submitted with an observation that there is land dispute for mosque and accused persons trying to occupy the land and there is counter and counter case and even recommended for prosecuting the informant. However, again, after two months a protest petition was filed which was treated as complaint and, thereafter, on solemn affirmation of the complainant and his two witnesses examined and after taking into consideration the learned Magistrate opined to issue processes against the accused person after taking cognizance that a prima facie case is made out against all the accused persons mentioned in the protest petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the two first information reports can not be maintainable and for which he relied upon a decision reported in 2008 (3) P.L.J.R., 18, (Ram Chandra Prasad & Anr. Vrs. State of Bihar) in which it was held that two cases can not run together for the same occurrence. However, here in the facts and circumstances of this case at hand two cases are not going on, but, cognizance has been taken in only one case on protest treating as complaint after submission of final form. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, could not be able to show that a case can not proceed on complaint after submission of the final form or even recommendation of the investigating officer for instituting a proceeding against the complainant. However, even if a police case fails the delay does not debar a protest-cum-complaint to be entertained. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that there is delay in filing the complaint, i.e., after two 3 months. However, mere delay in filing the complaint may not be a ground for quashing at this stage and further the Magistrate at this stage can not meticulously examine the defence of the accused and is only required to see whether prima facie case is made out. 3. Hence, having regard to the facts, I do not find any merit in this case. The petitioners, if so advised, may raise the issue at the stage of framing of charge. 4. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed off. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )