IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1586 of 2009 KAMESHWAR MANDAL @ KAMESHWAR PRASAD MANDAL & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2/ 2.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to question the propriety of the order dated 3.9.2008 in Complaint Case no. 696 of 2004 by which the learned Magistrate, namely, S.D.J.M. Katihar directed framing of charges against the accused persons. Many grounds have been submitted before me, like, that the petitioner who is the father in law, is residing separately from the husband and that this submission is corroborated by the statement made by the husband in his matrimonial petition. It was further contended that the learned Magistrate had imposed cost upon the complainant for non-production of her witness and that order was not complied with and, lastly, the complainant could not produce any witness except herself. It was contended that solitary witness was once produced on 3.6.2006 but, he was also not examined. It was contended that on these grounds the order be quashed. It is too well known to be stated that an order directing framing of charge or order refusing to discharge is an order passed on enquiry and any such order could be questioned before a court exercising revisional jurisdiction under sections 397, 398 and 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2 The present petition has been filed at a wrong forum. However, even after considering the order in its entirety, I find that the solitary evidence of the complainant was there and, in the court’s view, that could be sufficient for the passing of the order as was passed by the court below. The petition is dismissed as of no merit. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)