Criminal Miscellaneous No.23086 OF 1999 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ---- 1. MD. TAHJIB SON OF SAJABUDDIN 2. TANWIR SON OF ALIMUDDIN 3. MD. RASHID SON OF NOORUL HODA 4. NOUSHAD @ NOSAD SON OF ALLAUDDIN 5. NOORUL HODA SON OF ALLAUDDIN 6. RAHELLA KHATOON WIFE NOORUL HODA 7. RAHIL SON OF NOORUL HODA 8. KALIMUDDIN SON OF SHARFUDDIN 9. GURBAN ALI SON OF ALTAF ALI. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARA BARI, P.S. GARBHAN DANGA, DISTRICT KISHANGANJ. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SAMIRUDDIN SON OF ISLAMUDDIN. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TARA BARI, P.S. GARBHAN DANGA (DIGHAL BANK), DISTRICT KISHANGANJ. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Farooque Ahmad Khan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. Nine petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 10.6.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in Cr. Revision No.441 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition, which was filed against the order of cognizance dated 2 6.11.1998. 2. Short fact of the case is that the opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case vide Complaint Case No.971C of 1998 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj alleging therein that accused persons i.e. petitioners assaulted the complainant and forcibly took four tractors of sand from the land of the complainant. After filing of the revision petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of complaint, two witnesses were also examined during the enquiry. The learned Magistrate after being satisfied regarding commission of offence, by its order dated 10.10.1998, took cognizance for the offence under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of processes for securing attendance of accused persons. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners filed a revision vide Cr. Revision No.441 of 1998. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties and examining the materials on record, has rejected the revision petition. After rejection of revision application, the 3 petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed the present petition. 3. Shri Farooque Ahmad Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has argued that the petitioners were settlee by the government so far as sand is concerned and in accordance with the settlement agreement, the accused persons had taken the same. He submits that on perusal of the complaint petition as well as materials on record, no offence is made out and, accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of both the orders i.e. order of cognizance as well as order of revisional court. 4. Shri Hriday Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have virtually filed second revision petition in the garb of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that since second revision is barred under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the present 4 petition may be rejected on this ground alone. He further submits that the materials on record i.e. complaint petition as well as evidences are sufficient to disclose that offences as alleged was committed by the accused persons. Learned Additional P.P. submits that the Magistrate has taken cognizance in accordance with law and thereafter, revision filed by the petitioners was rightly rejected. Accordingly, he has prayed to reject the present petition. 5. Besides, hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the complaint petition as well as order dated 7.11.1998 passed by the revisional court and order of cognizance. The revisional order gives a detailed reason regarding the rejection of the petition. Moreover, I do not find any error in the order of cognizance. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and petition stands rejected. 7. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay, which was granted on 11.10.1999, stands automatically vacated. 5 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 30.4.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.