IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34836 of 2007 1. DINESH SINGH @ DINESHWAR SINGH SON OF LATE GRAHAN SINGH @ BASHISTHA SINGH. 2. ANANDI SINGH SON OF LATE GRAHAN SINGH @ BASHISHA SINGH. 3. ASHOK SINGH, SON OF DINESH SINGH. 4. BINOD SINGH, SON OF DINESH SINGH. 5. VIJAY SINGH, SON OF DINESH SINGH. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASANTPUR, P.S. ARA MUFFASIL, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. ……………………………………………………..…PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SHEODAYAL SINGH, SON OF RAM SINGHASAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASANTPUR, P.S. ARA MUFFASIL, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Sheojee Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None. ------------- 3. 20.11.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners of whom petitioner no.1 claims to be a Sub Inspector of Police posted at Murar Police Station in Buxar District and they challenge the order dated 10.7.2006 passed by Sri B.M. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhojpur at Arrah in Complaint Case No.250(C) of 2006, whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner and others for offences under Sections 321, 323, 379 and 504 I.P.C. against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners while placing the reliance on Annexure-2 which is a letter dated 11.3.2006 purported to have been written by the Dy.S.P., Dumraon to the Incharge Additional Public Prosecutor, tried up to set up an alibi for the petitioner no.1 - 2 - herein, Dineshwar Singh through which he sought an alibi for the petitioner no.1 herein by stating that at the relevant time of the occurrence he was very much present in the concerned police station and had made entries in the station diary. And on the basis thereof it was sought to be submitted that the entire prosecution was apparently false. This unfortunately happens to be the alibi of the petitioner no.1 which cannot be looked into at this stage in a quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners may agitate their grievance before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. This application apart from being misconceived appears to be vexatious. It is accordingly dismissed as being without merit. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)