Criminal Miscellaneous No.5994 of 2004 *** In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. *** Anwaruddin son of Late Sk. Samsuddin (Informant), resident of village- Lakri Tola Naviganj, Police Station- Barharia, District- Siwan ...Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Pashupati Sah son of Mahendra Sah, 3. Chanda Devi wife of Baijnath Sah, 4. Sadique Mian son of Late Rukunddin Mian, 5. Karimullah Mian son of Kheddin Mian 2 to 5 resident of village- Lakari Tola Naviganj, Police Station- Barharia, District- Siwan …Accused/Petitioners/Opposite Parties *** For the petitioner : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate. For the O. P. No.2 & 4:Mr. Dronacharya & Mr. Ajay Kr. Pandey, Advocates For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioner, who was the original complainant/ Informant of Barharia P.S. Case No. 96 of 2000, is aggrieved by the order of the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, dated 17.1.2004 by which he has discharged the opposite party no.2 to 5 in Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2002. 2. By order dated 09.09.2005, opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were noticed and opposite party nos. 2 and 4 have appeared through vakalatnama and thereafter the application was admitted on 18.1.2006. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that at the stage of charge the court is not to look into the niceties of the criminal case and should only see whether prima facie a case for trial is made out or not since it is not to conclude at that stage whether the case will end in acquittal or in conviction. In the order 2 impugned which is fairly long, the court below seems to have embarked upon an enquiry and by looking into the documents in the case diary has concluded that the claim of the informant/complainant that he was the original owner of the said land was not established. 4. I am of the view that the court below was not justified in stifling the prosecution at the threshold since the complainant/informant had to be given an opportunity to lay his claim and establish as to whether any offence under section 420 and 467 Indian Penal Code, against the accused persons was made out. 5. In view of such, this application is allowed and the order dated 17.1.2004 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Criminal Revision No. 86 of 2002 is hereby quashed. 6. Application stands allowed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 09th July, 2010. NAFR/ JA/-