IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22932 of 2007 SHASHI BHUSHAN KUMAR VERMA son of Late Paras Nath Verma, resident of village-Dhananji, Tola Ram Nagar, P.S. Pakari-dayal, District East Champaran at present resident of Mohalla-Bhawanipur Zirat, p.S. Chhatauni, District East Champaran. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Treta Nath Verma son of Suryadeo Narain Verma, resident of village-Dhanauji, Tola Ram Nagar, P.S. Pakaridayal, District-East Champaran. 3.Laxami Narain Singh son of Sri Bhup Narain Singh, 4.Brij Kishore Singh son of Sita Ram Singh, Both residents of village-Parsauni, P.S. Pakaridayal, District East Champaran. 5.Sanjay Kumar Singh Son of Lalit Singh resident of village-Kalu Pakar, P.S. Patahi, District East Champaran. ----------- 7 4/2/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite party no.2. It has to be noted that despite service of notice on opposite party nos. 3, 4 and 5 no one has appeared on their behalf. Grievance of the petitioner in this application is that even when this Court in the earlier order dated 9.1.2007 in Cr. Misc. No.9562 of 2004 had quashed the criminal prosecution pertaining to this case only in respect of one co-accused Radha Raman Prasad Singh who was petitioner in the aforesaid case, the court below could not have treated the said order to be applicable in the case of opposite party nos.2 to 5. Counsel for the petitioner in this context has drawn attention to the specific submissions and finding of facts recorded in the order dated 9.1.2007 to buttress his submission that what ever was held by his Court was confined only to the consideration of the case of Radha Raman Prasad 2 Singh. He would therefore submit that the court below has acted mechanically in passing the impugned order. Counsel for the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, would submit that it is a case of civil dispute relating to some claim in the property which was exclusively given in favour of opposite party no.2 by a Will and that when the petitioner, the own brother of opposite partyno.2, did not find any share in that as per Will, he has come out with a vexatious complaint and as such this Court should not disturb the impugned order so far it relates to the opposite party no.2. Having heard counsel for the parties, this much becomes clear that the opposite party no.2 had never moved this Court assailing the order taking cognizance and it was only one Radha Raman Prasad Singh who had filed his application initially before the revisional court against the order taking cognizance and thereafter before this Court and the entire order dated 9.1.2007 was passed only keeping his case in mind and that is how this Court was willing to record that the dispute was confined to two brothers and that Radha Raman Prasad Singh was only a deed writer and that the paragraphs of the case diary did not reflect any role played by him. It is also clear from the said order that the revision application was also filed only by Radha Raman Prasad Singh when this Court had set aside the order dated 23.10.2000 against which revision was filed by Radha Raman Prasad Singh, and the same, in fact, must be deemed to have confined only 3 against him. Admittedly, opposite party no.2 has not moved before this Court assailing the order taking cognizance on any ground including its being civil dispute and as such he have liberty to assail the impugned order taking cognizance on any ground whatsoever when this Court will have an opportunity to look into this case. That being so, the impugned order dated 19.2.2007 is modified by confining it to accused Radha Raman Prasad Singh. In other words, the criminal prosecution, Trial No.1523 of 2006, shall continue as against rest of the accused persons including opposite party nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)