IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42826 of 2007 1. CHANDRAMA KUMHAR @ CHANDRAMA RAM 2. DUDH NATH KUMHAR @ DUDHNATH PRASAD 3. SHESH NATH KUMHAR @ SHESH NATH PRASAD …PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BINDA DEVI …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the Petitioners: Mr. Rama Ishwar Chandra For the State :Mr. J. Upadhyaya,APP ---- 04. 25.08.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. Petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 07.08.2006, passed by learned SDJM in Complaint Case No.297(C)/04/Tr.No.1381/06, whereby cognizance was taken and they were summoned. They also seek to challenge the revisional order passed on their revision application being Cr. Rev. No.124/06, whereby the same was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in the complaint is basically a civil dispute. It is submitted that the complaint was filed after ten years of the alleged occurrence. Further it appears that impugned order was passed on 07.08.2006. It is also submitted that there was no interim protection in favour of the petitioner in the present proceeding. Learned revisional court in paragraph 6 has observed as under: “6. Considering the submissions urged at the Bar, going through the impugned order, memo of revision, L.C.R. and ruling cited above, it is 2 manifest that the facts of the present case is quite on different footing than the facts of the ruling cited above. It is well settled that when the prosecution at initial stage is challenged, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for oblique purpose. In the present case, if the allegations as alleged will remain uncontroverted then prima facie, those allegations will establish the offence and further there is no oblique purpose for filing the complaint petition, the complainant is trying her best to seek remedy both in civil and criminal suit as the accused persons being in collusion and conspiracy with each other committed both civil and criminal wrong. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist is not applicable in the present case, rather reliance can be placed upon n 2006(4) B.B.C.J. page 181,182 &183.” Having regard to the observations made in the aforesaid paragraph of the order of the learned revisional court and also the fact that the trial must have commenced, in the meanwhile, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )