IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.146 of 2008 1. MANJU SINHA, W/O SAMIR KUMAR SINHA, RESIDENT OF RAJEEV NAGAR, ROAD NO. 13, P.S. DIGHA, DISTRICT PATNA 2. SAMIR KUMAR SINHA, S/O LATE DR. S.N. RAI, READER, DEPARTMENT OF MATH, S.M.D. COLLEGE, PUNPUN, RESIDENT OF RAJEEV NAGAR, ROAD NO. 13, P.S. DIGHA, DISTRICT PATNA .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SANGITA SINHA, W/O SANJEEV KUMAR, RESIDENT OF MURHARI, VIA HARNAUT, DISTRICT NALANDA .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** /5/ 07.05.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against the order, dated 09.03.2000, for quashing the order taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 1796 C of 1999. Earlier the petitioners moved this Hon’ble Court in Cr. Misc. No. 3489 of 2001 for quashing the order taking cognizance, dated 09.03.2000, against the petitioners was withdrawn by order, dated 20.01.2003, which reads as “after some arguments learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application in order to raise their points before the learned Court below at the appropriate stage. The permission is accorded. Accordingly, this application is dismissed as withdrawn”. - 2 - However, the petitioners did not raise any question before the lower Court and has, again, preferred this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order taking cognizance. 3. However, by order, dated 22.01.2008, it has been ordered that seen the office note that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioners earlier filed a miscellaneous case for the same relief, but, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners earlier filed criminal miscellaneous case, but, that was withdrawn. Further, he explained the circumstances under which he had filed the criminal miscellaneous case even after withdrawal of the earlier case because the petitioners are competent to file such petition and in view of the submission made the criminal miscellaneous case be treated as maintainable. However, notice was issued to opposite party no. 2 to show cause as to why this application be not admitted and disposed off at the admission stage itself. 4. Opposite party no. 2 appeared at this stage and has raised objection about the maintainability that earlier the case was rejected in Cr. Misc. No. 3489 of 2001 by order, - 3 - 20.01.2003, and the order is at Annexure 1. Opposite party no. 2 has raised the objection that the petitioners have, again, filed this petition for quashing the cognizance, dated 09.03.2000, and no reason has been assigned in the petition for the delay in filing this petition after 2001. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that since this Court by order, dated 22.01.2008, mentioned that the miscellaneous case be treated to be maintainable. 6. Having regard to the fact that since opposite party no. 2 is objecting whereas the said impugned order was passed behind the back of opposite party no. 2 and since opposite party no. 2 has raised the issue of maintainability and there is no explanation at all for the delay in again coming to this Court after 2001 at this stage there is not maintainability. 7. The learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, however, contends that though earlier the petitioners withdrew the petition to challenge the order of cognizance, dated 09.03.2000, at the appropriate stage, but, without moving the lower Court has, again, filed this miscellaneous - 4 - petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that he has that liberty to raise the issue at any time. 9. Having regard to the facts since the petitioners have come against the order of cognizance, dated 09.03.2000, and had moved earlier also for quashing the order of cognizance in 2001 in Cr. Misc. No. 3489 of 2001 and that having been dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to raise the issue in the lower Court, but, without raising the issue has, again, come, hence, I do not find any merit to entertain the petition at this stage. 10. This petition is dismissed. S.A. (Gopal Prasad, J. )