IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42202 of 2007 1. KAILASH SINGH , SON OF LATE DUKHI PRASAD SINGH 2. JAGDISH SINGH SON OF LAE KARU SINGH 3. SAHEB SINGH SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-KASBA, POLICE STATION –SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT-BANKA 4. RAJIV SINGH SON OF GURU SHYAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RATA KHESAR P.S. BELHAR, DISTRICT-BANKA ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LALITA DEVI WIFE OF RANJAN MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KASBA, POLICE STATION SHAMBHUGANJ, DISTRICT-BANKA ---- OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 3 19-12-2008 Heard Mr. Najmul Hoda, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh no.2 , the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2. Through this application, the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 13.3.2007, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka has taken cognizance against the petitioners in Complaint Case no.997 of 2006 under Sections 448, 376 and 380 I.P.C. It appears that after the police had submitted a final form in Shambhuganj P.S. Case No.35 of 2005, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate proceed with the protest petition filed by the complainant as a complaint case and after recording the statement of the complainant on S.A. and recording the evidence of the two witnesses produced on her behalf he has taken cognizance. - 2 - The grievance of the petitioners is that after submission of final form and with the background of the inter se enmity between parties the complaint case has been filed only to rope the entire family members of the petitioners and also to harass them. The law on this issue has been laid down as far back as in the case of Chandrdeo -Vrs. Prakash Chandra , reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430, wherein their Lordships have held that since the object of an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether the allegation made in the complaint are intrinsically true, the Magistrate acting under Section 203 Cr.P.C. has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In order co come to this conclusion he is entitled to consider the evidence taken by him or recorded in an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that he is not entitled to rely upon any material besides this. That apart the ground of inter se enmity between the parties and the petitioners having earlier filed a case against the complainant is his defence which cannot be looked into in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-