IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5299 of 2008 1. Rinku Devi, wife of Rajesh Sao. 2. Sitaram Sao, son of Late Gopi Sao. 3. Pramila Devi, wife of Sitaram Sao. 4. Niranjan Sao @ Doma Sao, son of Sitaram Sao. All 1 to 4 are resident of village-Kariyanna, P.S.-Silao, District-Nalanda. 5. Munni Sao, son of Chamri Sao, resident of village-Dhamar, P.S.-Giriyak, District-Nalanda. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Gita Devi, wife of Hiraman Sao, resident of Mohalla-Murarpur, P.S.- Giriyak, P.S.-Laaheri, District-Nalanda. ………Opposite Parties. ----------- 03. 21.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and learned counsel for the State. In the present application, the order dated 06.06.2006 has been challenged whereby the cognizance has been taken in Silao P.S. Case No. 112 of 2005 under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present case has been filed as a retaliatory measure since a case was filed on behalf of the petitioners against the informant prior to the present case. However, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has submitted that prima facie the case has been found against the petitioners and then the impugned order has been passed. In view of the fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie the case after going through 2 the case diary and the charge sheet, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage. However petitioners are at liberty to raise all their contentions at the time of framing of charge, if the charges have already not been framed. With the above observations, the application stands dismissed. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)