IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8407 of 2008 1. BHUTTA PASWAN SON OF LATE RAUDI PASWAN 2. FAKIRA PASWAN, SON OF LATE DEODHARI PASWAN 3. GHOGHAI MAHTO SON OF LATE OTAI MAHTO 4. GANESH MAHTO, SON OF SAKLOO MAHTO 5. NATHUNI MAHTO, SON OF LATE AKLO MAHTO ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- BHATAUNA, P.S.- KARJA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DHARAM NATH SINGH, SON OF LATE DAMODAR SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE- BHATAUNA, P.S.- KARJA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR PRESENTLY WORKING AS HALKA KARAMCHARI, BLOCK- SAHEBGANJ, P.S.- SAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. For the petitioners : Mr. Jawahar Dhari Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 4 05.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 27.12.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case no. C-06/06 whereby cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 120B and 504 of Indian Penal Code has been taken based on an inquiry made under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. One Damodar Singh, who is Halka Karmachari, filed the aforesaid complaint on 2.1.2006 alleging inter alia that on 26.7.2004, petitioners had conspired with co-accused Daya Shankar Prasad Sharma and thereby a false case was lodged against the complainant and others alleging commission of offence(s) under Sections 323,, 379, 452 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(X) of S.C./S.T. Prevention of Corruption Act (for short the Act). It is alleged that the aforesaid case was lodged 2 by co-accused Daya Shankar Prasad Sharma and the petitioners herein were cited as witnesses. It appears from the record that the said complaint was transmitted to the police for registration of case and investigation. Investigation was carried out pursuant to registration of a case (Karja P.S. case no. 113 of 2004) whereafter the charge-sheet was submitted leading to order taking cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present complaint has been lodged for the purpose of setting up of defence to the case lodged against the present complainant and others earlier by one of the co-accused namely Daya Shankar Prasad Sharma. It is next contended that considering the peculiar facts of the case, this Court, in the case of one of the co-accused namely Daya Shankar Prasad Sharma, quashed the present impugned order by an order dated 6.9.2007 in Cr. Misc. no. 8546 of 2007. A copy of the aforesaid order has been handed in by learned counsel for the petitioners which is kept on record marked “X”. Learned counsel submits that on the same reasonings, the present application deserves to be allowed. Mr. Upadhyay, learned APP after going through the order dated 6.9.2007 does not dispute the aforesaid contention of the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid facts appearing from the record and the submissions made by the parties, this Court is 3 inclined to interfere with the matter on the reasonings assigned in order dated 6.9.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 8546 of 2007. Consequently, for the reasons disclosed hereinabove, the application is allowed. The order dated 27.12.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case no. C-06/06 is hereby quashed and set aside. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )