IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.23349 OF 2007 SHAHIDA KHATOON, WIFE OF MD. SHAMIM, RESIDENT AOF MOHALLA PANCHAITIYA AKHARA, POLICE STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT GAYA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHAFAQUAT HUSSAIN, SON OF WALAYET HUSSAIN 3. SANJEEDA KHATOON, WIFE OF SHAFAQUAT HUSSAIN 4. TARRANUM, DAUGHTER OF SHAFAQUAT HUSSAIN 5. CHOTE, SON OF NOW KNOWN (BHAGINA OF SHAFAQUAT HUSSAIN) …………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES ******* 4 23/06/2009 This application has been filed challenging the order dated 26.03.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Gaya in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2006/75 of 2006 and the order dated 21.07.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 687 of 2004, Trial No. 336 of 2006. The complainant-petitioner had filed this application under Section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to convert the summons case into a warrant case. The facts are that the complaint petition was filed alleging that the accused persons had committed certain offences. After examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation, cognizance was taken under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted that the witnesses have led evidence to show that the offence 2 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out in this case and as such it should be converted into a warrant case. From the orders impugned, it appears that the complainant had earlier filed an application under Section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was rejected on 30.08.2005 on merit. The order passed by the Court below rejecting the application was not challenged by the petitioner before the High Court and as such it became final. Again, the complainant-petitioner has filed an application under Section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein that since offences under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused persons, the Court should exercise its discretion and convert the case into a warrant case and re-try the entire matter. On perusal of the application filed in this case. I find that no reason/ground is made out to show that case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused persons. It is the duty of the petitioner to produce documents supported by pleadings in order to warrant interference by this Court. I, therefore, find that there is no ground 3 made out in this case to interfere with the orders impugned in view of the facts noticed above. In the result, this application is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )