IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13756 of 2009 1. Ashok Kumar, son of Ram Awadhesh Mayank. 2. Sunita Devi, wife of Ashok Kumar. Both resident of Village- Govindpur, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, District- Patna. 3. Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeeb Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar Saha, son of Sri Jagdish Sao. Resident of Village- Belthan, Police Station- Bakhtiarpur, District- Patna. …………………………….Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ram Awadhesh Mayank, son of Late Shyam Sah, resident of Village- Govindpur, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna, at present the Village- Raghopur (Prakash Bhawan) P.S. Bihta, District- Patna. ……Opposite Parties. For the petitioners :- Mr. Dinesh Jha, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary, A.P.P. ----------- 6. 24. 01. 2011. Heard. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21. 02. 2008, passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna, by which summon has been ordered to be issued against the accused persons after taking cognizance under Sections 341, 323 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition that complainant has earlier filed a Complaint Case No. 3703 C/06 a against the accused persons and witness Sunita Devi was also filed a Complaint Case No. 744 C/07 against the accused persons. After filing of the complaint case, accused persons became annoyed and all the accused persons surrounded the complainant while the complainant was passing through the Mushari then all the accused 2 person suddenly surrounded the complainant and Ashok Kumar took out dagger and assaulted and snatched spectacle and Rs. 6,000/- the pension amount of the complainant and also assaulted by slaps and fists. The complainant and witnesses were examined and considering the statement of the complainant on S.A. and statement of witnesses ordered to issue process after taking cognizance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, submits that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It has further contended that the complainant is none else than the father of the petitioner no. 1 and father-in-law of petitioner no. 2 and witnesses are full brother and Bhabi of petitioner no. 1. The matter concerned with land dispute between the parties and cases are being filed against him one after another and alleged that he has been malafidely and falsely implicated in this case. 4. However, having regard to the allegation that accused persons surrounded the complainant and assaulted and snatched money hence, apparently, makes out an offence and allegation is neither so absurd that within all human probability and it presumed to be absurd and not believable and repugnant to normal common sense. Moreover, witnesses have supported the prosecution case. 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that witnesses are interested because they are inimical terms with the petitioners. However, this Court at this stage has no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence or take into the contradiction in evidence or meticulously examined the material on record which is jurisdiction of the trial court during the trial and not the function of this Court. 6. However, having regard to the facts that offence as alleged makes out an offence which can neither said to be absurd and not believable and witnesses have supported, though, they are inimical. Hence, question of disputed fact can only be determined at the trial and plea taken by the petitioners about malafide in the fact and circumstance assume secondary importance when allegation makes out an offence. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit to quash the impugned order, hence, the petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is submitted that there is no offence made out against the petitioners that question may be raised at the stage of framing of the charge. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)