IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40588 of 2009 1. BHUSHAN MAHTO, SON OF KEDAR MAHTO 2. KEDAR MAHTO, SON OF KHAJO MAHTO 3. KAPILDEO MAHTO, SON OF LATE TITU MAHTO 4. GOVIND MAHTO, SON OF LATE KAILU MAHTO 5. DHANSHYAM MAHTO, SON OF RAMJEE MAHTO 6. PINKU KUMAR, SON OF KAPILDEO MAHTO ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE RATNUPUR VARYA TOLA, P.S. SURYAGARHA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. 7. NITYANAND KUMAR @ NITYANAND YADAV, SON OF LATE KALESHWAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHEM TARANI ASTHAN, P.S. SURYAGARHA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SUNITA DEVI, WIFE OF FUDAN MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RATNUPUR (BARAY TOLA), P.S. SURYAGARHA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners :- Mr. Ambika Bhagat, Advocate Mr. Kamal Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the State :- Smt. I.B. Pandey, A.P.P. ----------- 2 19.2.2010 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.10.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 292 of 2009 (Arising out of Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 197 of 2002) passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Lakhisarai who was pleased to reject the petition dated 15.10.2009 under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioners for their discharge from the criminal liability. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this matter arises out of a counter case filed by the Mukhiya in which it is alleged that the complainant of the present case had given him a lathi blow and injured his head. The dispute arose with respect to construction of a road which was being opposed by the present complainant. In order to save herself from the earlier case, the present case making false and fabricated allegations has been filed by the 2 complainant. The Fast Track Court No. II, Lakhisarai has rejected the application of discharge in Sessions Trial No. 292 of 2009 and has found that the offences made out against the petitioners are under Sections 448, 427, 323, 380, 376 and 511/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the charge sheet was submitted under Sections 448, 427, 323 and 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Apparently the Court differed and took cognizance under Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is apparent that the complainant was abusing the process of the Court by filing such frivolous application. This Court cannot interfere at this stage however, the Trial Court will definitely consider this aspect that the complainant was an accused in a case filed by the petitioners and that just after that case, the present case has been instituted and pass orders on this aspect of the matter, if it is raised during trial of the case. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)