IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.904 of 2008 1. OZAIR HUSSAIN RIZVI @ S. OZAIR HASSAN RIZVI, SON OF LATE ZAFFAR HASSAN RIZVI. 2. S. SHAHABUDDIN HASSAN RIZVI, SON OF LATE ZAFFAR HASAN RIZVI 3. MD. SAFI, SON OF LATE MD. NAJEM 4. TANVEER AHMAD @ MISTER, SON OF MD. GANNI 5. S. MOINUDDIN HASSAN RIZVI, SON OF OZAIR HASSAN RIZVI ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RUSALPUR, P.S. HAYAGHAT, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. ---- PETITIOENRS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. HALIM, SON OF LATE MD. MIAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RASULPUR, P.S. HAYAGHAT, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ---- OPPOSITE PARTY For the petitioners :- Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate Mr. Arbind Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Ravindra Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For the Opp. Party :- Mr. Dharmendra Jha, Advocate Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate ----------- 4 7.4.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 11.10.2007 arising out of a complaint 1424 of 2004 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. In this case, originally the First Information Report was filed and the police has submitted a final form. The offences made out in the F.I.R. were under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 380, 436, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The police submitted a final report stating that earlier a case had filed by the petitioners which is Hayaghat P.S. Case No. 90 of 2004 under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 380, 436, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the complainant and others had entered the house, assaulted the petitioners and has set fire to the hut. The present complaint case has been filed almost on the same grounds in the year 2005. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga 2 while looking into the evidence has come to a conclusion that the witnesses have not been able to support the factum of theft inasmuch that each of them gives a different version to the commission of the theft. The revisional court on the other hand has found that there are allegations of theft and also of setting fire to the house/hut and has remanded the matter back to the Court below to consider the evidence and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga by order dated 19.2.2008 has taken cognizance. Considering all aspects of the matter, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned orders. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise all questions at the stage of framing of charge. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)