IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.29808 OF 2008 1. NAJMUT TARIQUE @ TARIQUE ANWAR, SON OF MD. QUAZI NAJMUL HODA 2. BIBI AZIZ FATMA, WIFE OF AHMAD ISHAQUE 3. JABEEN FATMA, WIFE OF NAJMUT TARIQUE @ TARIQUE ANWAR 4. AISHA TARIQUE 5. SALEHA TARIQUE 6. SAMANIA TARIQUE 4 TO 6 ARE THE DAUGHTERS OF NAJMUT TARIQUE @ TARIQUE ANWAR. ALL ARE THE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BISHAMBHARPUR ALOTH, POLICE STATION MUSRIGHARARI, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR ………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ********** 2 24/08/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the informant and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.09.2007 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 380, 447, 448 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code in G.R. Case No. 1190 of 2006, Trial No. 2216 of 2008 (Musrigharari Police Station Case No. 63 of 2006). The allegations in the First Information Report are that the petitioners came in a car and sat on the verandah of the house of the informant. In the mean time, two persons on a motorcycle also came to the house of the informant and one of the accused 2 Tarique Anwar is said to give orders to those two persons to kill the informant. It is also alleged that Tarique Anwar handed over a suitcase from the house of the informant containing Rs. 16,000/- and some ornaments to the two antisocial elements. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as the petitioners, namely, Bibi Aziz Fatma, Jabeen Fatma, Aisha Tarique, Saleha Tarique and Samania Tarique are concerned, there is no role attributed to them. Besides which, it is stated that petitioners 4, 5 and 6 are the minor children and were sitting on the car and as such it appears that due to the land dispute and partition suit, the entire family members has been made accused in this case. Where the family members are admittedly litigating with each other with respect to a property, especially in a case where the parties are claiming partition, their appears to a lot of scope of one or the other party to file a criminal case one after the other in the Court so as to pressurize the other party. This case appears to be an example of such an instance where the entire family members including the minor children have been made accused without considering the fact that whether the allegations made in the First Information Report is plausible. 3 In this case, no case is made out under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code as there is no question of assault on anyone The offence constituted us 323 of the Indian Penal Code has not been alleged in the First Information Report. As far as offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, similarly I find that there is no allegation against the petitioner to enter into the house of the informant. So far as Sections 447 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they relate to the house trespass and criminal trespass and if the petitioners have not entered into the house of the informant, it cannot be said that they are guilty of house trespass or criminal trespass. On a plain reading of the First Information Report and even if the First Information Report is accepted as a whole, this Court finds that only a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner no. 1. So far as other petitioners are concerned, no case is made out under Sections 323, 380, 447, 448 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, this application is allowed in part as indicated above.. With respect to the other petitioners, this Court finds that there is no ground 4 for taking cognizance and accordingly, the order dated 07.09.2007 is quashed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )