IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56234 of 2006 SANJAY SINGH @ SANJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5. 25.8.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although notice was duly served on O.P. No.2 and he has appeared by filing vakalatnama yet at the time of hearing neither O.P. No.2 nor his accredited counsel is present in the court. The bone of contention appears to be a Baibeyana said to have been executed by the father of the petitioner. It is said that there had been family partition wherein the petitioner had got his separate share in the family partition and Baibeyaya was executed much later by his father and as such they have no concern with the alleged Baibeyana. It is also submitted that the entire dispute is of civil nature and hence a civil suit should be filed for the same. So far as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, they are his defence and also involves looking into the facts and figures which does not fall within the ambit of the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are given liberty to raise all these issues either at the time of framing of charge or in course of the trial. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)