Criminal Miscellaneous No.28955 of 1999 ----- In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ----- 1. Shushila Devi wife of Shashi Kant Jha 2. Shivani Devi W/o Hazari Jha Both resident of village – Jhalari, P.S. Rupauli, District Purnia ... ... Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... .. Opposite Party ------- For the petitioners: Mr. Madhav Roy, Advocate For the State: Mrs. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH Shiva Kirti Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Both the petitioners are ladies and have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 30-1-1999 whereby Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea took cognizance in Rupauli PS case no. 160/98 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. At the relevant time G.R. case No.2381/98 was pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea. By referring to the facts and allegations mentioned in the FIR (annexure-1) lodged by Chandan Kumr Jha on 19-10-1998 it has been submitted that 16 male accused persons allegedly came to the place of occurrence together along with various arms including fire arms and surrounded the informant and 2 his two uncles and thereafter two of the male accused persons allegedly fired at the uncles of the informant on which they fell down after sustaining injuries and till then these two petitioners were not at the place of occurrence. It was highlighted that only when the informant was running away in order to save his life, allegedly he saw both these petitioners moving towards the place of occurrence and they were uttering words to the effect that none should be spared and all should be shot dead. Allegedly when these petitioners saw the informant that he was running away then they shouted and pointed towards him but the informant managed to escape and in the meantime he heard sound of several shots. Subsequently when the culprits had moved away the informant went to the place of occurrence with other villagers and saw that both of his uncles were dead after sustaining injuries. The gist of submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that since the initial firing causing injuries to the two deceased took place at a time when the petitioners were not present at the place of occurrence, they cannot be said to have any common intention which other members of mob might be having in respect of assault upon the two deceased. They cannot even be said to be members of unlawful assembly because they were seen moving towards place of the occurrence after the first round of firing upon the deceased. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand submits that the order of cognizance is in respect of the offence 3 which is serious in nature relating to two deaths and involving a large number of persons including the two petitioners. According to him, there is no necessity to interfere with the said order of cognizance which is based upon charge sheet submitted by the police. According to learned counsel for the State, this court in exercise of power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should interfere only in rarest of rare cases where there is likelihood of manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the court. On considering the entire facts and circumstances and the submissions, it is found that it will not be proper for this court to interfere in the matter at this stage and the aforesaid submissions should be considered by the court below at appropriate stage in accordance with law. It would not be proper for this court to disclose its mind on the facts. This application is, therefore, dismissed. It is made clear that this order shall not prejudice the defence of the petitioners and they may raise all the contentions advanced above at appropriate stage including the stage of charge. Patna High Court The 23rd April, 2010 NAFR/BKS (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)