IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53729 of 2007 KISHORI PRASAD, S/o late Chet Narayan Mahto, R/o Bhaisasur, P.O. Biharsharif, P.S. Laheri, District Nalanda ….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sandeep Kumar, Son of Sri Subodh Kumar, R/o village Wadi, P.O. Wadi, P.S. Katrisarai, District Nalanda …. Opp. Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar No. 6, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P For O.P. No. 2 : None. ------- 2 17.2.2009 The main grievance of the petitioner who happens to be the complainant of Complaint Case No. 90C of 2006 is that notwithstanding there being sufficient evidence in course of the inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons having committed offences also under sections 406 and 420 IPC the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance only under section 417 IPC. by order dated 15.9.2006. Further grievance is also against the order dated 5.12.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Nalanda at Biharsharif, whereby he has rejected the revision preferred against the order dated 5.9.2006. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned A.P.P. for the State I am of the opinion that the petitioner may raise these issues by filing a petition if some materials showing the commission of offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC come on record from the deposition of the complainant’s witnesses - 2 - in course of the trial. With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)