IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53815 of 2007 1. Madan Kishore Singh, son of late Raghunath Singh 2. Nawal Kishore Singh, son of Late-Raghunath Singh 3. Bachcha Kishore Singh, son of late Raghunath Singh All residents of village-Karja P.S.-Karja, District-Muzaffarpur, at present residing at Hotel Midway, Mohalla-Bhagwan Pur Town, District- Muzaffarpur. 4. son-in-law of petitioner No. 1, Indrajit Kumar Choudhary, son of Satrughan Choudhary, resident of village-Kalbari, P.S.-Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur. ………Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Arun Kumar Sinha, son of late Shukdeo Prasad, Branch Manager, Bihar State Finance Corporation, Sahay Compound, Chhata Chowk, District- Kaji Mahmadpur, District-Muzaffarpur. ---------Opposite Parties. ----------- 03. 26.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The present quashing application has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.09.2003 passed by Sri. Bhola Nath Tiwary, learned Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 420, 380, 186, 500, 120B of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 201 of 2002(Trial No. 769 of 2007). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the main allegation is against one Kameshwar Prasad Sharma who took the tender papers and there is nothing specific against these petitioners and only because they are related with the main accused, they are being dragged in the 2 present case. It has been submitted that the cause of action arose with the O.P. on 17.01.2002 and the present complaint case has been filed on 24.01.2002. It has further been submitted that Kameshwar Prasad Sharma came before this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2876 of 2002 on the ground that he submitted the demand draft of Rs. 50,000/- along with the tender papers which had been misappropriated by the Opposite Party No. 2. In the order dated 05.03.2002, which is contained in Anexure-3, this Court directed to the Opposite Party No. 2 to accept the fresh tender papers of Kameshwar Prasad Sharma without the demand draft and at that time, no such contentions were raised by the Opposite Party No. 2 before this Hon’ble Court. It is also submitted that Anticipatory Bail was granted on this ground that in fact no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that after finding prima facie case the cognizance has been taken though admitted that no progress after cognizance has been done in the matter. From perusal of the records, it appears that against the present petitioners, no prima facie case is made out but I am not interfering in the matter because my attention has been drawn to the order dated 17.07.2006 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27016 of 2006 wherein this Hon’ble 3 Court refused to interfere with the cognizance order with regard to other accused and directed to raise all the points before the Trial Court at the time of hearing on the point of charge. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the present cognizance order. However, petitioner has liberty to raise all the points at the time of framing of charge and it is expected that the Trial Court will consider all the relevant facts particularly the submissions which has been recorded above. With these observations, and directions, the application stands disposed off. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)