IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.52783 of 2008 1. Bijali Devi, wife of Ramchandra Thakur. 2. Ramchandra Thakur, son of Late Raghunath Thakur. 3. Devo Thakur, son of Late Joginder Thakur. 4. Laxman Kamat, son of Bahadur Kamat. 5. Lami Jha, son of Chakradhar Jha. 6. Ashutosh Jha @ Babua, son of Late Pitambar Jha. All residents of village-Chainpur, P.S. Bangaon and District-Saharsa. ………………………………………………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Radha Kant Jha @ Lalan Jha, son of Late Shyam Sunder Jha, resident of village-Chainpur, P.S. Bangaon and District-Saharsa. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. -------------------------------- 2. 25.8.2011. Heard. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners, is directed against the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by Sri R. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Saharsa, in Complaint Case No.1115-C of 2008, summoning the accused petitioners finding prima facie case under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners with a prayer to quash the same. 2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that prior to the filing of the present complaint case, Bangaon P.S. Case No.68 of 2008 was instituted under Sections 147, 148, 323, 380 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act against the complainant-opposite party no.2 by the accused- petitioner no.2, Ramchandra Thakur and the police has submitted a chargesheet in that case, as such, the present complaint case has been filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 to put pressure upon the accused-petitioners to withdraw the aforesaid case. It appears from the impugned order dated 19.11.2008 that the Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses arrived at the conclusion that prima facie case under Sections 323 and 379 of the Indian penal Code is made out against the accused- petitioners and has ordered for summoning the accused- petitioners. At the time of summoning the accused-petitioners on an inquiry under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not required to examine the statements of the witnesses meticulously and to consider the defence, if any. 3 I find nothing in the impugned order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saharsa, to show the abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the issues, raised herein, at the appropriate stage during the course of the trial. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)