IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17073 of 2008 1. Ranjit Yadav , aged about 17 years, Son of Brahmdeo Yadav 2. Brahmdeo Yadav, Son of Late Lata Yadav @ Lato Yadav 3. Baby Devi Wife of Brahmdeo Yadav 4. Rabindra Yadav, Son of Asarfi Yadav 5. Chote Lal Yadav, Son of Asarfi Yadav 6. Bundil Yadav, Son of Shankar Yadav All residents of Village- Nazari, P.S. Laxmipur, District- Jamui ------------------------------- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Binod Mandal, Son of Basant Mandal, resident of Village- Nazari, P.S. Laxmipur, District- Jamui ------------- Opp.Parties. ----------- 02 02-07-2010 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Chakrobarti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri A.M.P.Mehta, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. Six petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 3.1.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in Laxmipur P.S. Case No.39 of 2005. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 376,452, 323 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while pressing this petition, submits that it was out and out a false case. Since the cattle of the accused persons grazed the field of the informant, a false case was instituted. It has further been submitted that the police after investigation had submitted report for the offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, which is a non- 2 cognizable offence. However, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 376,452,323 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on Annexure-3, which is Medical Report and it was submitted that even during the examination, the doctor has not found any injury on the private part of the victim girl. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that at the stage of supervision, the Superintendent of Police has also agreed with the view of the Investigating Officer and only as per the direction of the superior officer , chargesheet under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance. I have also heard Sri A.M.P.Mehta, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, who opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the F.I.R., which was lodged after the complaint case, i.e. Complaint Case No.130C of 2005 was referred to the police for registering the case and its investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On perusal of the F.I.R. it is evident that the informant has made specific averments that while his sister was cooking in her house, petitioner no.1 entered into the house of the informant and thereafter by force committed rape. Subsequently other accused persons also arrived there and further occurrence had taken place in respect of offence under Sections 323 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the Medical 3 Report is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly admitted that the medical report was prepared in the month of March, 2005. However, as per the F.I.R., as the date of occurrence is 10.2.2005, after lapse of such a long period the medical report has got no relevance to persuade the Court that only on the basis of the medical report, the order of cognizance can be quashed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case ,this Court is not persuaded to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioners and accordingly the petition stands rejected . Keeping in view the fact that occurrence had taken place long back in the month of February, 2005 and as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that till date the case has not been committed , it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously and conclude the same without granting any unnecessary adjournment. With the above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )