IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.34720 of 2007 1. JARSIS AHMAD LADLE son of Mohammad Alam, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Mohani, P.S. Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi. 2. Abdul Ahad son of Late Sagir Ahamad, Panchayat Secretary, Nanpur, P.S. Nandpur, District- Sitamarhi. . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Jay Narayan Ray son of late Shiv Shankar Ray, Resident of village-Mohani, P.S. Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi. . . . . Opposite parties. For the Petitioners: Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Tiwari, Advocates For the Opp. Party: Mr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P ----------- 6/ 03.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.06.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Sitamarhi in Cr. Revision No. 44 of 2006 by which he set aside the order dated 01.02.2006 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri, by which he had dropped the proceeding against the accused persons. The opposite party no.2 filed Complaint case no. 175 of 2003 against the petitioners. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for institution of a regular case. Pursuant thereto Nanpur P.S. case no. 84 of 2003 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 504, 420 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation submitted final form finding the case to be false. However, the case was proceeded on protest-cum-complaint petition filed by the informant. The Complaint case was numbered as 309 of 2005 (Annexure-2). Thereafter the witnesses were examined - 2 - under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. However, the learned Magistrate did not find sufficient materials to issue summons against the accused persons, as such the proceeding was dropped. The complainant went in revision bearing Cr. Revision No. 44 of 2006 and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Samastipur, set aside the order of the Magistrate dropping the proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisional Court while setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate asked him to collect further materials from the Collector, Sitamarhi and the other authorities. The order of the revisional court is an excess of his jurisdiction. In the result, the impugned order passed by the revisional Court dated 12.06.2007 passed in Cr. Revision No. 44 of 2006 by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Sitamarhi is hereby quashed. This application is, accordingly, allowed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)