IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33548 of 2007 1. BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH SON OF NAND KISHORE SINGH 2. NIRMAL KUMAR, SON OF LAL MUNI SINGH 3. NAND KUMAR @ NAND KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LAL MUNI SINGH 4. SAMIR KUMAR, SON OF NIRMAL KUMAR 5. VIKI KUMAR, SON OF NAND KISHORE SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHANGAI, POLICE STATION- BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF HARI SHARAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DHANGAI, POLICE STATION- BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. ----------- 8 05.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners are accused in Complaint Case no. 71 of 2007 instituted under diverse Sections of Indian Penal Code including Sections 341 and 386 of Indian Penal Code. They are aggrieved by the order dated 7.3.2007 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Bikramganj, Rohtas (Sasaram) whereby on a perusal of the materials brought on record in course of inquiry made under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the sustainability of the impugned order, submits that the date of occurrence as per the complaint is 30.1.2007. Complaint was filed in Court on 7.2.2007. There is thus no explanation for such delay. It is next contended that the petitioner no. 3 had filed a criminal case against the complainant, one Onkar Nath Gupta 2 and some others under diverse sections of Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to petitioners. It is submitted that the police have already found the aforesaid case true and charge-sheet has been submitted. It is thus the contention of the petitioners that the present case has been lodged with mala fide motives. Learned A.P.P, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. I am afraid that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners can be a ground for quashing of the order impugned wherein it has been found and recorded that the complainant and his inquiry witnesses have supported the allegations contained in the complaint. The submissions of the counsel are possibly their defence which at the stage of cognizance cannot be looked into and relied upon. In spite of my query, learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to state about the present position of the case/trial. It is to be highlighted here once again that the impugned order was passed on 7.3.2007. This Court does not find any illegality in the order meriting any interference. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )