IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29086 of 1999 RAM CHANDRA SAH @ RAM CHANDRA CHOUDHARY, SON OF SHEOLAL CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- BARA BAZAR, WARD NO.4, POLICE STATION- MADHUBANI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI 2. JAWAHAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE SHIVJEE PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- BARA BAZAR, WARD NO.4, POLICE STATION- MADHUBANI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI 3. RAJ KUMAR PRASAD ALIAS RAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE RAM LAKHAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BARA BAZAR, WARD NO.4, POLICE STATION- MADHUBANI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. 4. AYODHAYA PRASAD ALIAS AYODHAYA CHOUDHARY, SON OF NATHUNI CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- BARA BAZAR, WARD NO.4, POLICE STATION- MADHUBANI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI…………………… PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MOSMAT RAMPATI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SATYA NARAYAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- GADIYANI, WARD NO.3, POLICE STATION-MADHUBANI,DISTT- MADHUBANI……………………………………...OPP.PARTIES ----------- 8 26-04-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the State. 2. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the revisional order dated 31-5-1999 passed by 4th. Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 1394 of 1997 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the revision application preferred by the petitioner and refused to interfere with the order of cognizance dated 9-9-1997 passed in C.R.Case No. 706 of 1995, T.R. 909/97 relating to offences under sections 323,342,452,380 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On behalf of petitioners it has been submitted that complainant is in habit of filing of false and vexatious complaint cases and as would appear from annexure-3 she has filed complaint case no. C.R. 435 of 1995 against some of the accused persons of this case as well as some 2 others, altogether against 11 accused persons with similar allegation that the accused persons assaulted her and asked her to vacate the land in question. It has shown that in the earlier complaint case by judgment contained in annexure-4 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist. Class, Madhubani dated 12-1-1998 the accused were acquitted. 4. It has been further submitted that the present complaint case was lodged in December 1995 with similar allegation against 24 accused persons including large number of ladies, girls and children and the learned Magistrate took cognizance without applying his mind that there was no specific case against majority of the accused persons and the age of some of the accused persons should have been enquired into to prevent summoning of minors to face a criminal trial. Lastly, it has been submitted that the present prosecution with superfluous allegations has remained pending since 1995 and allowing the same to proceed further would be against the interest of justice. 5. On going through the order of cognizance contained in annexure-2 it is found that only on the ipse dixit of three witnesses some of whom contradicted each other as noted in the order of cognizance itself, cognizance has been taken against all the 24 accused persons . It is further noted that although in the complaint petition the complainant has mentioned about earlier case lodged by her pending before the Judicial Magistrate, but no effort was made by the learned Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance to find out what has happened in the earlier case with respect to similar occurrence involving the same property. 3 6. Thus, on a consideration of all the relevant facts it is found that the order of cognizance suffers from non-application of mind. It has been passed in a mechanical manner without any effort by the learned Magistrate to hold proper enquiry. It is further found that for very minor and superfluous offences the petitioners have remained under threat of similar prosecution for a long period. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and discussions the prayer made in this application is allowed. The revisional order as well as the order of cognizance are hereby quashed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)