IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14081 of 2007 1. ZAFAR ALAM KHAN, SON OF LATE TAHIR KHAN 2. MASOOD ALAM KHAN, SON OF LATE TAHIR KHAN BOTH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NABAB MANZIL, DARGAH ROAD, PATHAR- KE-MASJID, P.S. SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT PATNA-6. ------ PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SAMSUL HODA KHAN, SON OF LATE ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA IMADPUR, RAFIGANJ, P.S. RAFIGANJ, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 12 23.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody has appeared in this case for the complainant/opposite party no. 2 despite notices issued on several occasions by this Court. By order dated 29.4.2008, the notices were deemed to be validly served on opposite party no. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance dated 28.7.2005, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua (Kaimur), in Complaint Case No. 696 of 2005. In the complaint case there are eight accused persons. The petitioners are accused nos. 6 and 7 respectively. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the accused persons surrounded the complainant and there is specific allegation against Bhagwan Halwai, Prabhu Halwai and Rambabu Sao. The motive for the occurrence is that it is said that the complainant approached to - 2 - withdraw the Bikramganj case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 who is a retired Gazetted Officer, presently living at Pune and during his tenure had all along resided at Patna and except for the fact that there was some dispute with the family members of the complainant, there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the said occurrence. No specific allegations have been made against the petitioners. With respect to petitioner no. 2, it is said that he is a Central Government employee working in Madhubani and has no connection with the alleged occurrence. The names of these two persons have been dragged maliciously and these two petitioners have never resided or visited Bhabhua. It is further submitted that these two petitioners have nothing to do with Bikramganj case and as such the allegations leveled against them are completely false. Considering the facts of this case and the material that has come on record, it appears that the allegations as far as the petitioners are concerned are vague. It further seems improbable that the petitioners who are not resident of - 3 - Bhabhua would travel to Bhabhua to commit such a crime. Considering that they are Government employees posted at Patna and Madhubani respectively the whole case as far as involvement of the petitioners are concerned is unbelievable. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance dated 28.7.2005 as far as it concerns the petitioners only. This application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )