IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.405 of 2007 1. ARVIND PANDEY @ SOPAL PANDEY son of late Sarva Naryan Pandy @ Kapildeo Pandy. 2. Niku Devi wife of Arvind Pandey @ Sopal Pandey, Both residents of Village- Imadpur, P.S.- Imadpur, District- Bhojpur. 3. Indu Devi D/o late Sarva Narayan Pandey @ Kapil Deo Pandey W/o Kanhaiya Rai, resident of Village- Imadpur, P.S.- Imadpur, District- Bhojpur and at present resident of village Majhigaon, P.S. Charpokhari, District- Bhojpur. 4. Vimal Kant Pandey, son of late Vishwanath Pandey, resident of Village- Imadpur, P.S.- Imadpur, District- Bhojpur. 5. Vijay Kumar Rai son of Sri Algu Rai, resident of village- Koil, P.S. Charpokhari, District- Bhojpur. . . . . . Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5/ 15.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State as well as opposite party no.-2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 18.10.2006 passed in Complaint Case no. 1188 C of 2005 / Tr. No. 2635 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 379/34, 465/34, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Sobha Devi has wrongly alleged that her mother and sister were dead and did not execute the sale deed in question. Learned counsel further submits that in fact the petitioners had filed Title Suit in the year 2005, in which the sister of the complainant appeared and filed her written statement. Learned counsel further submits that the orders in Succession court would also show that she was alive. Learned counsel on these basis submits that the complainant has made out an entirely false case. The documents, which the petitioners are relying may support their contention, but at this stage the Court cannot look into - 2 - these defence. As such, I am not inclined to quash the order taking cognizance. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to raise all these points at the time of framing of charge, which will be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. As there was an interim stay in this case, the petitioners may pursue the remedy of bail in accordance with law. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)