IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46751 of 2008 HAFIZ MANSOOR @ MD.MANSOOR ALAM @ MANSOOR,Son of Sri Allauddin @ Dallu, resident of Village- Komai, P.S.Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga..........................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Mariyam Khatoon, wife of Mansoor Rahman, resident of Village-Ashi, P.S. Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga..............Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Md.Imteyaz Ahmad and Ravi Ranjan, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Atul Chandra, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : No one. ----------- 3. 27.01.2011. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance dated 23.10.2008 including the entire prosecution of Ghanshyampur P.S. Case No. 165 of 2004, Trial No.2036 of 2008 whereby the cognizance has been taken under Sections 448 and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code differing with the final form submitted against the petitioner. Initially, the matter was heard on 08.01.2010 when the notices were issued to opposite party no.2 and further proceedings pending before the learned court below was stayed. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is not appearing before this Court since last several occasions though the name of 2 learned counsel as Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha appears in the daily cause list. The petitioner is the brother of wife of the elder brother of husband of the informant. The accusation has been levelled that the petitioner forcefully established physical relationship with opposite party no.2 and took away one she-goat from the house of opposite party no.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, that the petitioner’s sister was married to the elder brother of the husband of the informant. The petitioner lodged a case under Section 304B and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code being Ghanshyampur P.S. Case No. 99 of 2004 on 12.08.2004 in which the informant of the present case was accused no.5 and the informant was arrested also and as a retaliatory measure the present case has been lodged on 25.12.2004 with frivolous allegation. It is further contended that during investigation the accusation was found false. Subsequently, the final form was submitted treating the accusation false on 13.08.2007 as it gets reflected from Annexure-2 but differing with the final form without assigning specific 3 reason cognizance has been taken mechanically. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant has retracted from his initial version and has filed a petition before the learned court below on 06.03.2010 to that effect which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. Considering the fact that the case has been maliciously filed as a retaliatory measure which is covered within the seven parameters for quashing criminal prosecution fixed in Bhajan Lal Case and the fact that the informant has retracted from his initial version no useful purpose will be served in allowing to continue the present prosecution. The impugned order reflects that no reason has been assigned by the learned court below for differing with the final form, accordingly, the present application is allowed and the order of cognizance dated 23.10.2008 including the entire prosecution of Ghanshyampur P.S. Case No. 165 of 2004, Trial No. 2036 of 2008 pending in the court of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Biraul at Benipur is hereby quashed. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.)