IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.49794 of 2008 1. Md. Firoz Khan, son of Late Faudari Miyan. 2. Yasmin Khan @ Khanam, wife of Md. Firoz Khan. 3. Md. Rashid Khan @ Abdul Rashid Khan, son of Late Habib Khan. 4. Md. Islam Khan, son of Md. Hakim Khan. 5. Md. Mahmood Alam, son of Sheikh Abbas. 6. Farida Pravin, wife of Md. Mahmood Khan. Petitioner nos.1 and 2 are residing at Village-Banpur, P.S. Khaira, District-Jamui, at present Khaira More, P.S. and District-Jamui. Petitioner 3 and 4 are resident of village-Banpur, P.S. Khaira, District-Jamui. Petitioner no.5 and 6 are resident of village-Jamui Bazar, East Tola, P.S. and District-Jamui. ………………………………………………...Petitioners. Versus The State Of Bihar…………………….Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- 3. 30.11.2011. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the court of Sri R. Das, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamui, in Complaint Case No.1160C of 2008, summoning the accused, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners, on inquiry, finding prima facie case under Sections 144, 147, 448, 452, 2 427 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the plot nos.191 and 192, measuring an area of 6 decimals of Khata No.53 of Village-Jamui Purani Bazar, were purchased by the accused- petitioner no.2, Yasmin Khan alias Khanam vide sale deed no.8719 on 25.9.2004 through the accused-Rasida Khan, Firoz Khan and Teka Khan, all sons of Habib Mian. The complainant, who was widow, made a request to the accused-petitioner nos.1 and 2, namely, Md. Firoz Khan and Yasmin Khan alias Khanam, to permit her to live in the mud house, situated over the said plots and, accordingly, she was permitted to live over the same and when she was asked to vacate the said mud house situated over the said plots, she, instead of vacating the same, falsely filed this complaint case only with a view to harass the accused, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners. It has also been submitted that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 have also filed several informatory petition before the concerned authorities for their protection. It appears from the impugned order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the court of Sri R. Das, Judicial 3 Magistrate, First Class, Jamui, in Complaint Case No.1160C of 2008, that the learned Judicial Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petition and evidence of the five witnesses, as examined in course of inquiry, has come to the conclusion that prima facie the case for the offence under Sections 144, 147, 448, 452, 427 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused, named in the complaint petition, including the petitioners and, accordingly, summoned them. At the time of summoning the accused, the Magistrate/court is not required to look into the defence of the accused, rather the Magistrate/court is only required to see as to whether on perusal of the complaint petition and statement of the witnesses prima facie the case is made out or not against the accused. I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 20.11.2008 passed by the court of Sri R. Das, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamui, in Complaint Case No.1160C of 2008, amounting to abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the issues, raised herein, at the appropriate stage during the course of 4 the trial. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)