IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.9525 of 2010 NITYANAND CHAUHAN, SON OF SRI YUGESHWAR CHAUHAN, R/O VILLAGE – GARHIA BALWAN, P.S. KRITYANAND NAGAR, DISTT. – PURNEA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALIGANJ P.S., PALIGANJ, DISTRICT – PATNA ……………. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR & 2. RAMESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE DWARIKA PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE – PALIGANJ, P.S. PALIGANJ, DISTRICT – PATNA ……………………………. OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate. For the State: Mr. A.H.M. Rahman, A.P.P. ----------- 2. 19.03.2010. Questioning the legal propriety of the order dated 17.08.2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Danapur in Complaint Case No. 725(C)/2009, the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate it is evident that he has considered the material on record and passed a detailed order taking cognizance. To appreciate the whole scenario, it is appropriate to reproduce a paragraph from the order: “On perusal of the complaint petition, statement of the complainant upon oath as well 2 as statement of inquiry witnesses and the documents filed by the complainant it appears that all the inquiry witnesses have unequivocally stated the incident in conformity with the version of the complainant; on the direction of the S.H.O. Nityanand Chauhan, the complainant was arrested and detained in the lock up but without any apparent reason or following the formalities required under the law (para 4,8, 13 of S.A.; para 9 of witness no. 1) moreover the Sub Inspector Yamuna Rai took out Rs. 1400/- from the complainant (para 3, 4 and 12 of S.A.; para 7 of witness no. 1; para 8 of witness no. 2; para 6 of witness no. 3) thus I find that there is sufficient ground for proceeding U/S-379 and 504 of the I.P.C. against accused persons namely – Saroj Singh and Pramila Devi; U/S 220 read with 109 of the I.P.C. against accused Nityanand Chauhan and U/S 220, 379 and 504 of the I.P.C. against accused Yamuna Rai.” In view of the aforesaid I am of the considered opinion this is not a fit case wherein taking aid of any of the grounds mentioned in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, A.I.R. 1992 SC 604, order taking cognizance can be quashed. 3 In view of the aforesaid analysis the petition, being, devoid of merit, stands rejected. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. )