IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10241 of 2007 MISHRI SAHANI,son of Darsi Sahni, resident of Bihumhuahi, PS Chriya, District East Champaran – petitioner. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2. Dhaneshwar Paswan, Sub Inspector, Mufassil Town PS, Motihari, Dist. East Champaran – opp. parties. with Cr.Misc. No.1827 of 2008 1. Jogi Sahni, 2. Mahendra Sahni, 3. Dahari Sahni, all sons of Late Yogendra Sahni, 4. Lal Babu Sahni, son of Sri Mahendra Sahni, 5. Jangali Rai @ Jangali Sahni, son of Ujadan Rai, 6. Baidyanath Sahni, son of Sahash Sahni, 7. Sukhau Sahni @ Khakhau Sahni, son of Girja Sahni, all of village Dih Mahuahi, PS Chiraiya, District East Champaran – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Mishri Sahni, son of Darshi Sahni, village Dih Mahuahi, PS Chiraiya, District East Champaran – opp. parties. 8 29.3.2010 Cr. Misc. No. 10241/2007 has been filed for quashing the order, dated 13.5.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Mufassil Ps case No. 207/2003 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence under section 302 of the Penal Code and summoning him to face the trial. Cr. Misc. No. 1827/2008 has been filed for quashing the order, dated 18.8.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Motihari in Inquiry No. 92/2006 arising out of Complaint Case No. C- 174/2004 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under sections 323, 324, 307 and 302/34 of the Penal Code. The fact are that Mishri Sahni filed Mufassil PS Case No. 57/2003 on 1.4.2003 alleging that the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 1927/2008 had murdered his sister. In this case final form was submitted. A protest petition was filed which was dismissed. Against 2 the order of dismissal of the protest which was treated as complaint petition, the informant moved the Sessions Judge by filing a revision petition which was allowed and the Judicial Magistrate was directed to conduct an enquiry. After enquiry under section 202 of the Cr. P. C., the case was found to be true and cognizance was taken against the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 1827/2008. In the mean time the police registered Mufassil PS Case No. 207/2003 in which Mishri Sahni was made accused on the basis of certain circumstantial evidence. Both the set of accused persons have challenged the respective orders of cognizance as well as enquiry and the counsel for Mishri Sahni submits that the two sets of cases cannot be maintainable for the same offence. I do not think that it is correct submission in view of the fact that the accused and the informant in both the cases are different. As far as Cr. Misc. No. 1827/2008 is concerned, an order of enquiry is perfectly within the para meters of law. Subsequently it appears that cognizance has also been taken in the complaint filed by Mishri Sahni. In view of the aforesaid facts I find that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. The petitioners of both the cases would be at liberty to move the court below with the prayer that both the cases should be taken up together for hearing. In case such a prayer is made, the trial court will take evidence, in the case one after the other, hear the arguments and then deliver the judgment. 3 The petitioners would be at liberty to raise whatever questions they think proper in the case at appropriate stage. These applications are dismissed with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)