IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.57484 of 2007 1. SUNIL RAM, SON OF KAILASH RAM. 2. MUKESH RAM, SON OF NATHUNI RAM. 3. CHHOTELAL RAM, SON OF NAND KISHORE RAM. 4. BAKULU RAM, SON OF NAND KISHORE RAM. 5. SHYAMAKANT RAM, SON OF LATE BHAGWAN RAM. ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA – AMBEDKAR COLONY, BANSWARIYA, P.S. BETTIAH TOWN, DISTRICT –WEST CHAMPARAN. ……… ACCUSED / PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. ANARKALI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE DHRUB RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – AMBEDKAR COLONY, BANSWARIYA, P.S. – BETTIAH TOWN, DISTRICT – WEST CHAMPARNA. …………. COMPLAINANT / OPP. PARTY. ----------- 02. 09.04.2010 Heard the parties. This petition is directed against the order dated 31.08.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Cr. Rev. No. 65 of 2007 affirming the order dated 27.01.2005 passed by Sri J. Lal, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Trial No. 2159 of 2004 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 147, 148, 325 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the all the accused persons armed with Lathi, Bhala, Grasha and Pistol and tried to obstruct the construction in the land and on protest the informant was assaulted causing injury and taking away and taking into consideration the step of the complainant and witnesses the cognizance taken taking into consideration the statement of the complainant and these witnesses the summons were ordered to be issued taking into consideration that the prima facie case is made 2 out. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the stage of 204 the learned Magistrate has formed an opinion whether a prima facie case is made out. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that there is land dispute and he claims the land and the complainant is in habit of the filing cases and he may have annexed three cases which have been filed by her. One against one of the accused and two cases against others and contended that she is habit of filing a cases. However, this may not be a ground for interference as this requires a disputed question of fact to be decided. Hence, taking into consideration the entire extent, I do not find any illegality to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Judge and hence I do not find any merit, illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and hence, the petition is dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)