IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50565 of 2007 1. Rameshwar Sah @ Rameshwar Prasad Sah, Son of Late Anup Sah. 2. Sharavan Kumar Sah @ Sharavan Prasad Sah. 3. Nirmal Kumar Sah. 4. Binod Kumar Sah @ Binod Prasad Sah. All 2 to 4 are sons of Rameshwar Prasad Sah. All are residents of Bahadurganj, P.S. Bahadurganj, District Kishanganj. -------- Petitioners Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Jai Raj Krishna Singh, Son of Late Jamuna Prasad, Resident of Kishanganj, P.S. & District Kishanganj, Proprietor, Nirajay Trading Company, Bahadurganj. --------- Opposite Parties ----------- 3 29.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The impugned order taking cognizance for offence under Sections 406, 420 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code is sought to be assailed only on the ground that the bank draft of Rs. 50,000/- allegedly given to the complainant has become subject matter of two cases, one being filed by the petitioners against the complainant and the other case filed by the complainant against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners in fact submits that the case filed by the petitioners against the complainant was found to be true and the police has submitted a charge-sheet whereafter the trial also has commenced and proceeded to a considerable stage. He would, therefore, submit that the present complaint case filed by the complainant opposite party no.2 against the petitioners has to be eventually treated to be a false case. In the opinion of this Court, at the stage of taking cognizance, such defence of the petitioners could not have been 2 looked into and therefore, when in the complaint petition, there were materials to constitute offence under Sections 406, 420 & 379 of the Indian Penal Code, it was difficult for the court below to refuse taking cognizance of the offence. One thing, however, can be done that if the case filed by the petitioners has already proceeded to a considerable stage as is said in paragraph no.13 of the application, the court below in seisin of the present case i.e. complaint case will be required to take into consideration the findings and the judgment of the said case, if the same is also adduced in evidence by the petitioners by way of their defence. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)