IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56183 of 2007 1. MD. HARISH ANSARI SON OF MD. MOJIBUL ANSARI 2. HABIBUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE SUJAYAT ALI 3. MD. ZUBAIR ANSARI SON OF HABIBUR RAHMAN 4. SHABBIR ANSARI SON OF HABIBUR RAHMAN PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARRAIYA, P.S. AMOUR, DISTRICT PURNIA. 5. SHAKUR ANSARI SON OF REYAZUDDIN ANSARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SONAPUR, P.O. EKAMBA, P.S. JALALGARH, DISTRICT PURNEA. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIBI LAITOON DAUGHTER OF LATE GAFOOR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARAIYA, P.S. AMOUR, DISTRICT PURNEA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4. 22.6.2010. Heard Mr. Sufiyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri R.B. Pahepuri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners aggrieved with the order dated 28.9.2007 passed in Cr. Revision No.277 of 2006, have approached this Court. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.6, Purnea has allowed the revision petition, which was filed by the complainant. In the complaint case, after examining the complainant and witnesses, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 354, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. However, cognizance under Section 376 of the Indian 2 Penal Code was not taken. The revisional court, after examining and perusing entire materials available on record, has remanded back the matter to the court below to pass fresh order in accordance with law. The complainant in the complaint petition has categorically disclosed regarding commission of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, which was supported by other enquiry witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to old litigation between the parties, the complainant had made a false case and as such learned Additional Sessions Judge was not required to interfere with the order of cognizance. Shri Pahepuri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner and referring paragraph-6 of the impugned order, submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had examined the entire materials and there is sufficient material to indicate the offence of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing the parties and perusing the impugned order, I do not find any defect in the order. Accordingly, the petition stands 3 N.H./ rejected. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 30.3.2010 stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)