IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.48849 of 2008 1. Abdul Rauf Ansari Son of Late Abdul Rajak. 2. Arif Ansari Son of Abdul Rauf Ansari. 3. Irshad Ansari son of Abdul Rauf Ansari. 4. Aklakh Ansari son of Abdul Rauf Ansari. 5. Asfak Ansari son of Abdul Rauf Ansari. 6. Husne Ara daughter of Abdul Rauf Ansari. All residents of Mohalla- Neel Kothi, Dihri-On Son, P.S. Dihri- On-Son, District-Rohtas……………………………..Petitioners. -Versus- The State of Bihar…………………………….….Opposite Party. ----------- For the petitioners: M/S.Ajay Kumar Thakur, Ravi Ranjan-I and Ravindra Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Ved Prakash, A.P.P. For the complainant: Md. Syed Asgar Nazmi,Advocate. ----------- 2. 14.5.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the complainant. Petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 15.1.2008 by virtue of which in Complaint Case No. 865 of 2007, cognizance under Sections 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the accused persons. The primary allegation made in the complaint has an origin on a dispute between the husband and wife over which already a complaint case no. 181 of 2007 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been lodged. Present case is against her husband. It is alleged in the complaint thereafter that as part of negotiation and resolution of the dispute, the accused persons namely the petitioners came to the house of the complainant of the present case, entered into negotiation and stayed after having dinner at the place of the complainant and thereafter the petitioners tried to escape - 2 - with some properties in the early morning. Based on the allegation, cognizance has been taken under Sections 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code as stated above. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that not only a false and frivolous case in addition to earlier case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code has been lodged, but on perusal of the complaint it would show that no ingredients for the offence under Sections 448 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. Once in the complaint, it is said that the petitioners came for negotiation and were extended hospitality, they stayed night there, it is not a case of criminal trespass. So far the complaint under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, nothing is alleged that any body has committed hurt. Having considered the submissions and on plain reading of the complaint, it would show that the ingredients of the offence on which cognizance has been taken is not made out and it deserves to be quashed for ends of justice. The application is allowed and the order dated 15.1.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Aurangabad, in Complaint Case No. 865 of 2007 stands quashed. The application is allowed. U.K. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J)