IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46391 of 2007 1. BHUWANESHWAR SINGH SON OF LATE RAMSWARATH SINGH 2. KAMESHWAR SINGH S/O PARAM HANSH SINGH 3. RAM LAKSHAN SINGH SON OF SAHAJ NARAIN SINGH 4. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH S/O RAM LAKSHAN SINGH 5. PANKAJ KUMAR SON OF RAM LAKSHAN SINGH 6. SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O RAMCHANDRA SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SHEOHAR, P.S. DUMRA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHYAM KISHORE SINGH S/O LATE RAJENDRA SINGH OF VILLAGE SHEOHAR, P.S. DUMRA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI(INFORMANT). ----------- 4. 8.3.2010. Heard Mr. Madhav Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 14.7.2006 passed in Dumra P.S. Case No.110 of 2006 (G.R. No.845 of 2006) by A.C.J.M., Sitamarhi for the offences under Sections 379 and 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings pending in the court of Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sitamarhi in Trial No.2203 of 2006. While pressing the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though in the first information report allegation was made that they had stolen road side Shisham trees of the Government, the fact remains that trees which were lying over the land of the petitioners and were cut by the petitioners. The seized wood of Shisham trees were of the trees which were 2 lying in their field. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits by referring paragraph-18 of the petition that in para-47 of the case diary, it has been recorded that measurement was done by the Investigating Officer but the said measurement was done in absence of the petitioners and, as such, on the basis of said measurement these petitioners cannot be held responsible for committing such offence. Learned counsel further submits that on the petition of the petitioners order of measurement was passed and measurement was done and the same was kept on the record of the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that measurement report indicates that these trees were of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that till date neither District Magistrate nor Forest Department has claimed for the seized wood. I have heard learned counsel for the State also, who opposes the prayer for quashing of order of cognizance. He submits that order of cognizance categorically indicates that same was passed after perusing the materials available on the record and it indicates that cognizable offences were committed by the petitioners. He submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order. He further submits that this is not the stage for questioning the order of cognizance by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. I have perused the first information report as well as impugned order. Firstly, the order of cognizance was passed on 14.7.2006. It appears that after a lapse of more than one year, they 3 filed the present petition before this Court for quashing the order of cognizance. It is not clear from the record that what happened after the order of cognizance, which was passed on 14.7.2006. Prima facie, I do not find any illegality in the order of cognizance. Secondly, the first information report, which I have examined, categorically discloses that the offence was committed by the petitioners. First information report also contains the seizure list to indicate that as per the prosecution case Shisham woods, which were found to be stolen, were seized by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not argued that at any stage petitioners had taken steps for release of the seized articles. After going through the material available on record and after examining the order dated 14.7.2006, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order. The petition stands rejected. However, it is made clear that rejection of this petition may not prevent the petitioners to file an appropriate petition before the court below at an appropriate stage and, if such petition is filed, the court below, without being prejudiced by this order, may examine the same and pass appropriate order. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)