IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28360 of 2009 1. Sheo Kumar Jha, Son of late Kameshwar Jha 2. Rajesh Kumar @ Munna Jha, son of Sheo Kumar Jha, both residents of village- Siho, P.S. Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur 3. Harendra Bhagat, son of late Sheoji Bhagat, resident of village-Chousima, P.S. Sakra, District-Muzaffarpur ……. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Most. Kaushalya Devi, Wife of Sheoji Bhagat, resident of village-Chousima, P.S. Sakra, District-Muzaffarpur ….. Opposite Parties. For the petitioners: Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr Nirmal Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. ---------------------------------- 2 15-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state on the point of admission. This petition under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 02.06.2009 passed by Smt Reshma Verma, Judicial Magistrate-IInd Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No 769 of 2009 corresponding to Trial No. 1001 of 2009 and for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case. The learned Judicial Magistrate ordered to issue summons against the petitioners having found prima facie case under Sections-323, 504/379 of the Indian Penal Code after due inquiry passing the impugned order dated 02-06- 2009. 2 Opposite Party No. 2 namely, Most. Kaushalya Devi filed above said Complaint Case No. 769 of 2009 against the petitioners in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur alleging therein that on 26.03.2009 , the petitioner mercilessly assaulted her and in that course, the golden chain of her daughter-in-law and wrist watch of her son were also snatched by the petitioners. She further alleged that petitioner No. 3 had already sold the lands of his share and after selling of his lands, he started pressing the complainant to sell the lands falling in the share of her another son, namely, Mahesh Bhagat and when the complainant refused to obey the command of petitioner No. 3, all the petitioners committed the above-said occurrence. It would appear from the impugned order that learned Judicial Magistrate having conducted an inquiry, passed the impugned order as stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 3 is none else than the own son of complainant and as a matter of fact, there was some partition dispute in the family of the complainant and when the petitioner No. 1 being ex-Mukhiya of the village of complainant tried to intervene into the aforesaid dispute, not only he but his son was implicated in the above-said false case. In my view, the above-said defence of the 3 petitioners can be considered in trial and it is not an appropriate stage to quash the order of issuance of process as well as the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 769 of 2009 only on the ground of alleged false implication. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)