IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49219 of 2007 1. SURESH PASWAN, Son of late Shyamdeo Paswan, resident of Qr. No. 8A, Gandhinagar, Boring Road, Patna, P.S. Shrikrishnapuri, District-Patna at present posted as Director, District Rural Development Agency, Madhubani 2. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, son of Shri Shree Raman Sinha, Resident of Muhalla Rajendra Nagar, new Bahadurpur, Road No. 13-B (Shyam Mandir) Road, P.S.-Sultanganj, District-Patna, presently posted as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Samastipur 3. Aditya Kumar Das, son of Shri Sitaram Das, resident of Saraswati Sadan, Nawratan Hata, P.S.-Town and District- Purnea, presently posted as Director, Accounts, District Rural Development Agency, Patna ---------------Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Chandeshwar Singh, Son of Shri Awadh Behari Singh, resident of village-Kolha, P.S.-Nonhar, P.S.-Bikramganj, District-Rohtas (informant) ----------------Opposite Parties ----------- 6. 07.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. This application has been filed challenging the order of cognizance. There is case and counter case between the parties. The accused persons petitioner no. 1 is the D.C.L.R., Petitioner no. 2 is the Deputy S.P. and petitioner no. 3 is the Civil S.D.O. The allegation is that on the orders of the aforesaid persons, the Havaldar assaulted the complainant. In the counter case filed there is allegation against the complainant that he was trying to disrupt the election process for which two cases 2 have been filed against the complainant. One which is contained in Annexure-2 and the other by one Mamta Devi. The petitioners are officers of the State, it is not expected that they will act in a manner which is beyond the boundaries of the law. It my opinion this was a fit case which ought to have been sent for lodging a First Information Report and police investigation, in view of the fact that there is an allegation against the complainant that he was disrupting the Election process. On behalf of the complaint it has been strenuously argued the officers connived with an Aganbari workers Mamta Devi, came to his house, and assaulted him. This Court finds that there is an allegation and counter allegation, it is also not possible to order investigation at this late stage of an occurrence which took place five years ago. In the circumstances, it would not be proper to quash the order of cognizance, however, leave is given to the petitioners to bring to the notice of the Court the cases filed against the complainant, if a discharge application is fitted. In a case such as this the Court should 3 play a pro-active role, at the stage of examination of witnesses before charge, to judge the authenticity of the statements of the witnesses and may also considers clubbing the trials together, if possible. This application is disposed of with aforesaid observation. Anand Kr. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)