IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24340 of 2008 NANDU THAKUR, SON OF CHIRKUT THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARIYARI CHAK, P.S. MEHSI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MOSTT. SUMITRA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RITU THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARIYARI CHAK, P.S. MEHSI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 23.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code dated 19.9.2003 in Complaint Case No. C-1530 of 2003 giving rise to Trial No. 1961 of 2003. The grounds of challenge are that earlier the case had been investigated by the Officer Incharge of the concerned police station and the Officer Incharge has found that the case was not true and the entire allegations had been levelled because of land dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the fact that the allegations were not found true by the Investigating Officer, the Court proceeded on the basis of complaint-cum-protest petition and took cognizance under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. The main argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the entire occurrence is unbelievable and improbable in view of the fact that the petitioner is the nephew of the alleged victim lady and there is an admitted land dispute pending between them. This question will have to be examined at a later stage of the case and this 2 Court cannot interfere with the order of cognizance as there is no illegality in the order. The petitioner has leave to raise these questions at the time of framing of charge. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)