IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23645 of 2010 1. Md.Chand, son of Md. Samsuddin. 2. Sahina Parveen alias Mausam, D/o Md. Samsuddin. 3. Rukhsana Begum, w/o Md. Samsuddin. 4. Md. Samsuddin, son of Late md. Hanif. 5. Tara Bibi w/o late Bahab Mian. 6. Raushan Khatoon @ Rosni, wife of Syed Md. Shamim. 7. Syed Md. Shamim @ Md. Shamim, son of Syed Bajeet Hussain. All residents of Kashmiri Bag, Mogalpura, Fauzdari Kuan, P.S.-Khajekalan, District-Patna. ……...Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Md. Rafik, son of Md. Hamid, resident of Kashmiri Bag, Fauzdari Kuan, P.S.-Khajekalan, District-Patna. ……..Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, Adv. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, Adv. 2 09.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners have filed instant petition for quashing of Complaint Case No.1107/2009 coupled with an order dated 06.02.2010 whereby and where under petitioners have been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 149, 323, 379, 504, 427 and 417 of the I.P.C. Simple submission has been made on behalf of petitioners that one of the petitioner, namely, Sahina Parveen @ Mausam happens to be wife of son of Md. Rafik, the complainant and because of the fact that on account of marital discord she had filed Khajekalan P.S. Case No.4/2010, then thereafter instant complaint petition 2 has been filed and to support the same Annexure-2 is there, from which it transpires that day of institution of case happens to be on 08.01.2010 while the complainant had filed on 14.12.2009. The aforesaid Khajekalan P.S. Case No.4/2010 was filed after getting her grievance turned down which was communicated through advocate notice dated 09.12.2009. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of O.P. No.2 as well as the State. However, it has been pleaded on behalf of the O.P. No.2 that an earlier count, money which was lend by him has been digested and for realization of the same, repeated demand was made on account of which petitioners/accused have given a dart by criminal action, therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, did not justify their submission. State has endorsed the view. The plea whatever been taken by the petitioner may be a good ground in their defence, but for the present that does not appear to be a ground for quashing of the proceeding coupled with the order of cognizance. Accordingly, prayer is refused. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise their plea at appropriate stage. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)