IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. MISC.NO. 177 07 OF 2007 SHASHI BHUSHAN DUTTA SHARMA @ SHASHI BHUSHAN DUTTA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4. 26.03.2010 This is an application against the order dated 7.2.2004 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Madhubani passed in C.R. No. 179 of 2003/E.N. No. 41 of 2003 whereby cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal code has been taken against the petitioners and one Shailendra Kumar Koushik. The complainant Prem Kumar Mandhan alleges that he had supplied ply wood materials on two occasions to co-accused Shailendra Kumar Kaushik and that the truck fare was paid immediately at the time of delivery but a sum of Rs. 81,089 was due for payment on which Sahilendra Kumar Kaushik took time on several occasions but it was not paid and ultimately on 21.2.2003 when the complainant went to the Firm of the Shailendra Kumar Kaushik, the petitioner who is said to be father of Sahilendra Kumar kaushik was present there. The complaint further alleged that when he enquired from the petitioner about accused Shailendra Kuamr Kaushik, he (petitioner) replied that he had gone to Gaziyabad but in the meantime, Sahilendra Kumar Kaushik came there. The complaint asked the petitioner as to why he suppressed the information about the accused Shailendra Kumar Kaushik at which, the petitioner and Sahilendra Kumar Kaushik both abused him and assaulted him with fists and slaps and drove him away from the premises. On the filing of the complaint, the learned C.J.M. directed the officer-in-charge Sakari P.S. to conduct an investigation. The officer-in-charge examined some witnesses and then 2 submitted his report dated 11.12.2003 wherein he reported about a prima facie case against the petitioner and other accused Shailendra Kumar Kaushik on the basis of materials, namely, complaint petition, complainant’s statement and statement of witnesses. On the report of the officer-in-charge of Sakari P.S., the cognizance of offence was taken by the learned C.J.M. During argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been described as father of other accused Shailendra Kumar Kaushik but in fact he is not father but brother of Shaildendra Kuamr Kaushik. It is submitted that the petitioner, the father of Shailendra Kumar Kaushik was not present at the P.O. May be the petitioner is not the father of the co-accused Shailendra Kumar Kaushik and it may also be that the relationship has been wrongly mentioned in the complaint petition but the petitioner has been specifically mentioned as the person who had committed the offence. Due to mentioning of wrong relationship, when the name of the offender is specifically mentioned, the prosecution cannot be quashed at this stage. It is a matter to be clarified during trial. Presently, the petitioner has been mentioned with specific name whose name is not denied but simply his relationship with the accused No.1 Shailendra Kumar Kaushik is denied. In such view of the matters, I find no good ground to make any interference with the impugned order. Thus, the application has no merit and as such it is dismissed (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-