IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.7712 OF 2008 1. RAM CHANDRA PRASAD @ RAMJI MISTRI, SON OF NAMCHANDRA MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PERMA, POLICE STATION NARDIGANJ, DISTRICT NAWADA 2. SURESH PRASAD, SON OF JAGDISH MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AKAUNA, POLICE STATION MUFFASIL NAWADA, DISTRICT NAWADA 3. HARI PRASAD, SON OF RAM SWARUP MAHTO @ GHUTAR MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARMA, POLICE STATION NARDIGANJ, DISTRICT NAWADA 4. GORELAL PRASAD, SON OF BINDESHWAR MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARMA, POLICE STATION NARDIGANJ, DISTRICT NAWADA 5. BHIKHARI PRASAD, SON OF LATE LAKHAN MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARMA, POLICE STATION NARDIGANJ, DISTRICT NAWADA 6. KESHAV PRASAD, SON OF LATE LAKHAN MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARMA, POLICE STATION NARDIGANJ, DISTRICT NAWADA 7. PINTU PRASAD @ JWALA PRASAD, SON OF RAMCHANDRA MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARMA, POLICE STATION NARDIGANJ, DISTRICT NAWADA …………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DINDYAL PRASAD, SON OF KAILASH MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARMA, POLICE STATION NARDIGANJ, DISTRICT NAWADA ………………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES *********** 2 18/01/2010 The petitioners have filed this application challenging the order taking cognizance dated 18.09.2007 on the ground that the present case has been filed to harass the petitioners as they had filed a case against the complainant under Sections 366 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code in which cognizance has already been taken. These aspects of the matter can be considered by the Court below while dealing with the case at an appropriate stage but it cannot make a ground for quashing of the order taking cognizance. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)