IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36871 of 2007 1. RABINDRA RAI. 2. SARBIND RAI, BOTH SONS OF UPENDRA RAI, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-MINAPUR JADHUA, P.S. HAJIPUR TOWN, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DANI RAI, SON OF SURAJ RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AKILABAD, P.O. GADAI SARAI, P.S. HAJIPUR SADAR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. ………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Alok Kumar ‘Alok’, Advocate. ------------ 4 27.11.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the leaned counsel for O.P. No.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 30.4.2007 passed by Sri M. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaishali at Hajaipur in Complaint Case No.2440 of 2005, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences against the petitioners and others under Sections 341, 323, 379 I.P.C. and has also directed for issuance of process against them including the petitioners. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the lands claimed to have been purchased by the complainant, Dani Rai, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, from Raj Ballav Rai, is not a correct statement of fact and that Raj Ballav Rai had never sold any piece of his lands to any other person during his - 2 - life time. It was also submitted that the petitioners had earlier filed a case being Complaint Case No.2408 of 2005 and later on Hajipur (Sadar) P.S. Case No.38 of 2004 against the opposite party no.2 herein and in the latter case the bail granted to O.P. No.2 was cancelled by order dated 18.5.2006 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.11064 of 2006 for having disturbed the possession of these petitioners over the lands in question. Whether the land in question was purchased by O.P. No.2 or not is a question of fact. Similarly, the petitioners having filed two cases against O.P. No.2 happen to be their defence. It is by now well settled that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be loath in looking into the facts and circumstances as also the defence of the persons arrayed as accused in complaint cases or even in police cases. Since the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners verge on facts and are their defence, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)