IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8294 of 2008 1. NAVREJ KHAN, SON OF SALAUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE UNMARWA, P.S. RAM NAGAR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 2. AURANZED KHAN, SON OF MISTER KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHISHUNPURWA, P.S. RAM NAGAR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 3. BIKASH KHAN, SON OF MISTER KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHISHUNPURWA, P.S. RAM NAGAR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 4. KHURSHID KHAN, SON OF MANJAR KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHISHUNPURWA, P.S. RAM NAGAR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 5. NURSHED KHAN, SON OF MANJAR KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHISHUNPURWA, P.S. RAM NAGAR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN.----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. GAFAR SAH, SON OF RAFIQU, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHISHUNPURWA, P.S. RAM NAGAR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN.----- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2 27.1.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order of cognizance dated 14.7.2006, passed by the S.D.J.M., Bagaha, District West Champaran, in T.R. No. 1605/2007/1356/2008, arising out of Ram Nagar P.S. Case No. 182 of 2005 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are closely related to the informant and during the investigation, the Investigating Officer has found that there was a dispute between the children of the two families which has resulted in the occurrence and the lodging of this case. The main contention on behalf of the petitioners is that no case is made out under Section 387 of the I.P.C. because the entire story built around Section 387 is unbelievable and in fact was disbelieved by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that the Court did not have any material before it to come to a conclusion that a case is made out under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 This aspect of the matter can be decided at the stage of framing of charge and the Court would obviously pursue the case diary and see whether this part of the allegation is supported by witnesses or not. At this stage, the Court cannot interfere with the order of cognizance dated 14.7.2006. This application is thus disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)