IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.29931 of 2009 1. Akhileshwar Singh, S/O-Late Jagarnath Singh 2. Jaganeshwar Singh, S/O-Late Jagarnath Singh 3. Surjit Singh, S/O-Late Bhubneshwar Singh 4. Ajit Singh, S/O-Late Bhubneshwar Singh 5. Sharda Kuwar, W/O-Late Bhubneshwar Singh 6. Rita Devi, W/O-Late Jaganeshwar Singh 7. Seema Devi, W/O- Akhileshwar Singh 8. Sinku Kumari, daughter of Jaganeshwar Singh 9. Sujita Devi, Daughter of Late Bhubneshwar Singh All resident of Fakuli, P.S.- Awtar Nagar, District-Saran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Surendra Prasad Singh, S/O-Late Ramdebak Singh, resident of Fakuli, P.S.- Awtar Nagar, District-Saran For the petitioner: - Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh For the State :- Mr. Dilip Kumar (A.P.P.) 02 15.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission. In my view, this petition can be disposed of on admission stage itself. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.11.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 841 of 2008 corresponding to Trial No. 3684 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra by which and whereunder he having found prima facie case under Sections 147, 323, 384/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, ordered to issue process against them for securing their attendance to face trial. The brief fact, which gives rise to file this quashing petition, is that Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Surendra Prasad Singh filed above stated Complaint Case No. 841 of 2008 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra against petitioners alleging therein that on 22.03.2008 at about 08:00 A.M. while he along with witnesses was - 2 - sitting at his Verandah, petitioners being armed with lethal weapons came there and started abusing them. The complainant forbade them to do so but they assaulted the complainant with different weapons and also took his signature on plain papers. The aforesaid complaint case was transferred to the court of Sri Ram Sajjan, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra, Saran for enquiry. In course of enquiry, learned Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of witnesses and passed the impugned order in the manner as stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the alleged date of occurrence several petitioners were not present at their home which is evident from perusal of Annexure-2 to this petition and furthermore, the present case is counterblast of Complaint Case No. 2625 of 2004 which had been filed by father of petitioner nos. 3, 4, 9 and husband of petitioner no. 5. It is further submitted by him that the story as propounded by the complainant is baseless, concocted and totally unbelievable and the present prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but only an abuse of process of the court. It would appear from perusal of contents of this petition as well as submissions of the parties that petitioners have sought the quashing of impugned order on three grounds. Firstly, they state that petitioner nos. 1, 7 and 2 were not present at their home at the time of alleged occurrence rather petitioner no. 1 had gone to his Sasural to take back petitioner no. 7 whereas petitioner no. 2 was at Barouni in connection with his job. Secondly, they state that one Bhubneshwar Singh who happens to be father of petitioner nos. 3 and 4 as well as - 3 - husband of petitioner no. 5 had filed complaint case and the present complaint case is nothing but only the result of filing of the above stated complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 2625 of 2004 and thirdly, they state that the story as propounded by the complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) is not believable. In my view, first two grounds would be seen at the time of the trial and it is not a proper stage to accept the aforesaid two grounds as gospel truth. So far as third ground is concerned, in my view, there is nothing in the complaint petition to discard the story of complaint petition by holding that the aforesaid story of the complaint petition is not believable. In view of the aforesaid circumstance, I have no option except to dismiss this petition on admission stage itself. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself. However, it is made clear that the findings given in this order shall not affect the merit of the case. SHAHZAD (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)