IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.40868 OF 2008 1. SATYENDRA PRASAD, SON OF KAILASH MATHO 2. CHANDRA DEO PRASAD, SON OF ALTE HAIRHAR MAHTO BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KURTHA, POLICE STATION HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA ………………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MINA DEVI, WIFE OF NAWAL SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KURTHA, POLICE STATION HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA ………………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* 3 29/07/2011 Heard Mr. Sadanand Roy, Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below has taken cognizance in Hilsa Police Station Case No. 314 of 2006 after differing with the findings of the Investigating Officer. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioners have a very good case on merits, inasmuch as they would be able to show that the occurrence did not actually take place and the First Information Report has been instituted maliciously because the petitioners had filed a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the informant’s family. Be that as it may, this aspect of the matter can 2 be considered by the Court below at the appropriate stage of the case. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)