IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29474 of 2009 1. Naresh Kumar Prasad @ Naresh Gupta, S/O-Late Kedar Nath Prasad 2. Manoj Kumar Prasad @Manoj Gupta, S/O- Sri Naresh Kumar Prasad Both are resident of village-Dand-Khora, P.S.-Dandkhora, District- Katihar………………Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar …………….Opposite Party. ----------- 02 14.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 for quashing the order dated 12.06.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Dandkhora P.S. Case No. 48 of 2008 by which and whereunder he took cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that informant Bannu Paswan gave a written report to Block Development Officer-cum Circle Officer, Dandkhora alleging therein that he had received coupon of 25 kg. rice from the aforesaid Block Development Officer, Dandkhora as compensation and when he went to dealer, Manoj Gupta, the aforesaid dealer took his coupon and did not supply rice and on 10.06.2008, when he again went to demand the rice in lieu of above stated coupon, the petitioner no. 1 who happens to be father of petitioner no. 2, namely, Manoj Kumar Prasad @ Manoj Gupta ordered petitioner no. 2 to assault the informant and after that petitioner no. 2 put a Gamcha around the neck of the informant and started assaulting him as a result of which he sustained 2 injury. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Dandkhora P.S. Case No. 48 of 2008 under Sections 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and after due investigation, police submitted charge- sheet in the above stated offences. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having perused the materials available on the case diary passed the impugned order taking cognizance under Sections 341, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned order arguing that in course of investigation not a single witness has supported the prosecution case nor any injury was found on the person of the informant as he refused to get examine himself medically. It is also contended by him that, as a matter of fact, the alleged coupon issued to informant belonged to the shop of one Brahmanand Sao and when the aforesaid fact was disclosed by petitioner no. 2 to informant, he became furious and abused the petitioners and after that lodged the above stated case without any genuine reason. It is also contended by him that the present case is squarely covered by the well-known decisions of Bhajan Lal’s Case. Learned counsel appearing for the State refuted the above stated submissions and submitted that all the above stated points raised by the petitioners may be considered by the learned court below at the time of framing of the charge and it is not proper stage to set aside the cognizance order on the basis of aforesaid submissions. Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties, I have gone through the record. Admittedly, the above stated 3 Dandkhora P.S. Case No. 48 of 2008 has been registered on the basis of written report of informant and the informant has very specifically stated that he was assaulted by the petitioners with fists and slaps and furthermore, it is also an admitted position that after investigation police has submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341,323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, in course of investigation some witnesses stated that it was informant himself who abused the petitioners and also gave threatening of dire consequences to them but, in my view, it is not proper stage to set aside the cognizance order on the basis of statements of above stated witnesses. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this petition is dismissed on admission stage itself. However, the petitioners may raise all their pleas at the time of explanation of accusation/framing of the charge and if they do so, the learned trial court shall consider the aforesaid pleas in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)