IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28193 of 2009 Rakesh Kumar Mishra & Anr Versus State Of Bihar & Anr ----------- 2. 12.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. has been preferred for quashing the order dated 29.05.2009 passed in Cr. Revision No. 120 of 2008 by Shri B.K.P. Gupta, Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara as well as for quashing cognizance order dated 10.06.2008 passed in Behea P.S. Case No. 61 of 2008 corresponding to Trial No. 3163 of 2008 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur. Behea P.S. Case No. 61 of 2008 was registered on the basis of written report submitted by informant Sudhir Kumar Yadav who stated in the aforesaid written report that on 11.04.2008, the petitioners caught and dragged him into their house where he was mercilessly assaulted by petitioners and other F.I.R. named accused persons with different weapons. It is further alleged that informant had love affairs with daughter of the petitioner No. 2 and due to that reason the said occurrence took place. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no such occurrence, as alleged in the First Information Report, had ever taken place and the falsity of the case is proved by this fact that no injury is available on the case diary. It is further contended by him that, as a matter of fact, prior to lodging of Behea P.S. Case No. 61 of 2008, the petitioner No. 1 had 2 lodged Behea P.S. Case No. 60 of 2008 against informant of the present case as well as others for the offences under Sections 458, 380, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(1-B)a, 26 & 35 of the Arms Act and the present case has been lodged in retaliation of the above stated case. Annexure-2 to this petition reveals that Behea P.S. Case No. 60 of 2008 was lodged on 12.04.2008 and Annexure-1 to this petition reveals that on the same day Behea P.S. Case No. 61 of 2008 was registered. So, it is clear that both the parties are making allegations against each other and, therefore, in my view, the aforesaid facts require dipper investigation which is possible in trial of both the aforesaid cases. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that mere pendency of case and counter case does not give jurisdiction to this Court to exercise its power vested under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. So far as non-availability of the inquiry report on the case diary as well as non-application of Section 307 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the same shall be considered at the time of framing of the charge. In the aforesaid circumstances, this petition stands dismissed on admission stage itself. However, petitioners may raise the above stated pleas at the time of framing of the charge, if they are so advised and the trial Court shall consider the above stated pleas on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. Saif /- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)