IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30370 of 2008 (1) Gupteshwar Bharti, (2) Shambhu Bharti @ Shambhunath Bharti, both sons of Chandrama Bharti, (3) Sanjay Bharti, (4) Ajay Bharti, both sons of Gupteshwar Bharti, (5) Binod Bharti, son of Jaiprakash Bharti, all of Pachbenia, PS Assao, District Siwan – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar. 2 24.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 22.2.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan in Complaint Case No. C 2564/2007 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under sections 323 and 392 of the Penal Code on the basis of the protest petition. Initially the investigation was made by the Officer Incharge and he came to the conclusion that no case is made out under sections 323 and 392 of the Penal Code as the alleged stolen tractor was recovered from the house of the complainant. The seizure list has been enclosed in this case. The court has taken cognizance on the basis of the protest petition. In such matters where the facts blatantly reveal that the allegation of stealing / committing dacoity of the tractor is a part of the FIR / complaint petition which is not substantiated in view of the fact that the recovery report does not support the case, it would amount to abuse of process of law if the petitioners are forced to face the criminal prosecution merely on an oral statement of the complainant. I, therefore, quash the order, dated 22.2.2008 and 2 direct that the court should issue notice to the complainant and after hearing him may direct for further enquiry into the matter before taking cognizance in this matter. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)