IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50535 of 2007 1. Sanjesh Prasad, son of Late Kesh Ranjan Prasad, resident of Plot No. 73, Road No. 3, Friend’s Colony, PO- Ashianan Nagar, PS- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna. 2. Anil Kumar Verma, son of Late Chandrakant Prasad, resident of village- Gaddopur, P. S.- Bangra, District- Samastipur. 3. Devendra Prasad, son of late, Raghunandan Prasad, resident of village- Gaddopur, P. S. Bangra, District- Samastipur. 4. Priya Kant, son of late, Sukhdeo Prasad, resident of village Harishankarpur Baghauni, P.S. Tajpur, District- Samastipur. 5. Gautama, son of Late, Sukhdeo Prasad, resident of village Harishankarpur Baghauni, P. S.- Tajpur, District-Samastipur. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Surya Narayan Verma, son of late Brajnandan Prasad, resident of village- Gaddopur, P. S.- Bangra, District- Samastipur. ----------- 3. 30.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The entire criminal proceedings of the petitioners for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code including the impugned order taking cognizance are sought to be assailed by Mr. Akashdeep, learned counsel for the petitioners, by taking a plea that petitioner no. 1 is an advocate and petitioner no. 4 is a physically disabled person and yet there has been an omnibus allegation even against them which by itself would bring the present case in the category of inherently improbable malicious prosecution. 2 Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 however would submit that there may be substance with regard to false implication of petitioner no. 1, an Advocate and but then there is quite specific allegation against others including petitioner no. 4 and as such plea in defence of petitioner no. 4 of being physically disabled can only be looked into at the stage of trial. Considering all these aspects and also in view of fact that the allegations against petitioner no. 1 being quite vague and omnibus which also complainant, opposite party no. 2 now does not intend to press, this court would quash the criminal proceeding including impugned order taking against petitioner no. 1 only. The trial however shall continue against rest of the accused persons including petitioners 2 to 5. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)