IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14618 of 2008 NOOR HODA, S/O Abdur Rahman, resident of Village- Gurchaurba, P.S. Majhaulia, District- West Champaran...............................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Samiun Nisha, D/O Sameer, W/O Mujiuar Rahman, resident of Village- Bhogari, P.S. Majhaulia, District- East Champaran.........................................................Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 14.05.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.08.2007 passed in complaint case no. 1182( C ) of 2004, Tr. No. 470 of 2007 by which cognizance has been taken under Section 376 of the I.P.C. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the complaint was filed but the police case was instituted after complaint being transferred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police after investigation submitted final form and then on protest the cognizance was taken under Section 354 and other Sections of the I.P.C. but not under Section 376 of the I.P.C. The said order of cognizance was challenged in the revisional court and the revisional court also did not interfere then 2 the complainant moved this High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 31827 of 2004 by which the matter was remanded and consequentially the impugned order of cognizance has been passed. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case has been lodged in retaliation to Manjhaulia P.S. Case No. 152 of 2003 lodged by the daughter of the petitioner against her husband and other family members and in the present case the complainant/informant is none else than the second wife of the husband of the daughter of the petitioner and it is the husband of the daughter of the petitioner frivolously set up the informant to lodge this frivolous case to save his skin from Manjhaulia P.S. Case No. 152 of 2003. Apparently, the contentions of the petitioner have forced but since the order of cognizance is dated 18.08.2007 hence on that score alone, I am not interfering with the order of cognizance. However, the petitioner may raise all his contentions at the time of framing of charges if the charges have already not been framed. It is expected from the trial court to consider the entire contentions of the 3 petitioner particularly the present case being filed in retaliation to Manjhaulia P.S. Case No. 152 of 2003. From perusal of the earlier orders particularly the impugned order it does not appear that the entire facts have been considered while passing the earlier orders. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed off. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)