IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21864 of 2007 1. RAGHU RAM JHA @ CHIRANJEEV JHA son of Kapileshwar Jha 2. Girja Devi, w/o Raghu Ram Jha. 3. Ajit Jha, s/o Raghu Ram Jha 4. Punam Devi, w/o Ajit Jha. 5. Archana Devi, D/o Raghu Ram Jha. All are resident of village- Kubauli Ram, P. S. Bangra, Dist. Samastipur. … Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Kameshwar Jha, s/o late Dukhan Jha R/vill.- Wazi Bujurg, P. S. Sakra, Dist. Muzaffapur. … Opposite parties. ----------- 5. 29.01.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for opposite party no. 2 as also the counsel for the State. In this case counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order taking cognizance dated 27.1.2007 has raised a very short issue. He would submit that earlier when the complaint was dismissed, the matter was taken up to revisional court and the revisional court having found the materials had directed for holding further enquiry and passing fresh order after looking into the statement of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as also the allegations made in the complaint and the statement of complainant on solemn affirmation. Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in the impugned order the learned magistrate 2 has only referred to the order passed by the revisional court and on that basis alone he has proceeded to take cognizance. Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 while defending the impugned order would in fact submit that if the order of the revisional court is read as a whole it would become clear that a direction was already given by revisional court which being an order of Superior Court was binding on the learned magistrate. In the opinion of this court, the order of revisional court was very clear as is apparent from paragraph 7 of the said order which reads as follows:- “ 7- mijksDr fopkj&foe'kZ ds vkyksd esa izfrokfnr vkns'k fnukad 24-9-03 dks ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA fo}ku eq[; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh] eqtQ~Qjiqj dks /kkjk&398 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr funsZ"k fn;k tkrk gS fd os ifjokn dh vfrfjDr tkWp Lo;a djsa vFkok vius v/khuLFk U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjhx.k esa ls fdlh ds }kjk djk;saA ,slk djrs gq;s fo}ku eq[; U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh ;k U;kf;d n.mkf/kdkjh ifjoknh }kjk fn;s x;s c;ku o lkf{k;ksa }kjk fn;s x;s c;ku ij vo'; fopkj djsaA** In the aforementioned order the court of Magistrate in seisin of the matter was thus required to hold enquiry and apply himself by looking into the statement of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as also 3 any other materials on record instead of passing the impugned order taking cognizance only on the basis of alleged direction of revisional court. That being so, the impugned order passed by court below being in violation of the direction given by the revisional court is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the learned magistrate who now without being prejudiced by the fact that his earlier order has been quashed by this court would proceed afresh in the light of direction given by the revisional court as quoted above and pass any appropriate order in accordance with law. Accordingly, this application is allowed only to the extent indicated above. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)