IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45043 of 2007 1. SHARWAN BHAGAT 2. PAWAN BHAGAT @ PAWAN KUMAR BHAGAT 3. RAM BALAK BHAGAT 4. SHEO RAM BHAGAT 5. KAILASHI DEVI Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2, BINOD BHAGAT ----------- 2. 19.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for Opposite party no. 2. The petitioners question the order of cognizance dated 8.6.2007 against them in protest-cum-complaint case no. 315 C of 2007 under Sections 364, 120B of the Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged victim girl is own sister of Opposite party no. 2. The petitioners are the relatives of Opposite party no. 2. Learned counsels for the petitioners and Opposite party no.2 have admitted that there is a serious land dispute pending between them and there are several litigations on that score. Learned counsel for the petitioners urging false implication for the land dispute between the parties submits that opposite party no. 2 himself lodged a sanha before the Police on 21.5.2002 stating that his 25 year old younger sister had gone missing on 16.5.2002; that she was mentally unsound. Opposite party no. 2 did nothing thereafter till the institution of Complaint case No. 1972 C of 2006 on 18.10.2006. The cause of action sought to be made out was that on 21.5.2006, the co-villagers, witnesses to the complaint case, had seen the petitioners dragging 2 the sister of the informant in the village. The matter was referred to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. when final report came to be submitted on 25.12.2006 that the allegations were untrue; that unsound mind sister of the Opposite party no. 2 had gone missing on her own. After final report was submitted recommending proceedings against the Opposite party no. 2 under Sections 182, 193 and 211 of the Penal Code, the present protest-cum-complaint case came to be filed on 25.6.2007 on which cognizance has been taken. Learned counsel for Opposite party no. 2 opposing the application submitted that cognizance has been taken after enquiry and, therefore, there was no justification for the Court to interfere with the order of cognizance at this stage. From the allegations made by Opposite party no. 2 in Complaint case No. 1972 C of 2006 sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the protest-cum-complaint case No. 315 C of 2007, the Opposite party no. 2 has chosen not to deny his own sanha. In fact, in both the cases he refers to his Sanha lodged on 16.5.2002. Even while referring to Sanha, he chooses to remain completely silent on that aspect of Sanha that his sister was unsound mind and has remained out of his own and missing. That the fact that despite the allegation that his sister was seen by co- villagers/witnesses in complaint case on 21.5.2006 in the village, she remained in the village for four years and that the complaint witnesses despite seeing her after four years took no steps for 3 retrieve and watched her go-bye, raise serious doubt about the allegations sought to be made. In the entire conspectus of the case, the first sanha by opposite party no. 2, absence of any allegations in the subsequent complaint of her unsound mind and in the protest-cum- complaint case, his sister being available in the village for four years, the witnesses not protesting despite her being taken away in their presence, the allegations being made for more than four and half years after the sanha, the admitted position of the parties being related with several litigations between them, this Court is unable to sustain the order of cognizance in complaint case no. 315 C of 2007 and is satisfied that continuance of the prosecution against the petitioners shall be an abuse of the process of law. The order dated 8.6.2007 passed in Complaint case no. 315 C/2007 pending before Sri A.K. Lal, Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Begusarai is accordingly quashed. The application sands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)