IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1925 of 2009 1. Khursid Alam son of late Fazlur Rahman 2. Anjum son of Khursid Alam 3. Siddique son of late Zameer 4. Ismail son of late Abdul Sattar 5. Arsad son of Hajee Hasib 6. Sajjad Alam son of Hajee Hasib 7. Sahid Alam son of Ibrahim All are R/o village Sihagaon P.S. Balrampur, Dist. Katihar ….petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Laila Khatoon Divorced wife of Sk. Rajjak daughter of Ibrahim, resident of village Sihagaon P.S. Balrampur, Dist. Katihar …opposite parties. ------------------- 3 22.12.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 29.08.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Isat Class, Katihar in complaint case no. 1897 of 2001 by which the petition filed for their discharge has been rejected. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that prior to filing the complaint petition the complainant has filed a petition before the Circle Officer that she has not seen as to who has set fire in the kitchen of the complainant whereas in the complaint petition she has made allegation against the petitioners. All these facts have been raise in the petition dated 5.3.2008 before the learned Judicial Magistrate for the discharge of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order has been passed after taking the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and also after examination of four witnesses on behalf of the complainant and the learned trial 2 court has mentioned that the defence raised by the petitioners will also be considered during the trial. After considering the evidence adduced in the case the learned Magistrate has found a prima facie case against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 323, 379 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that filing of the petition before the Circle Officer by the complainant is one of the ground of defence of the petitioners. The learned trial court has considered the material on the record and found a prima facie case against the petitioners to proceed against them. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. M.Rahman (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)