IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53217 of 2007 1. SHIV KUMAR BHAGAT @ MUNNA 2. Lav Kush Bhagat @ Lalu Both are son of Late Madhusudan Bhagat, House no. 5, Basant Vihar Colony, Boring Road, P.S. Shri Krishnapuri District Patna … Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Binod Kumar, S/o Late Saligram Singh, R/o Dumra Kothi, Lane No. 3, Mohalla Salimpur Ahra, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District – Patna. … Opp. Parties ----------- For the petitioner : M/s R.B. Mahto, Sr. Advocate & Ajay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : None -------- 2 11.2.2009 The petitioners who are the only FIR named accused in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 231 of 1997 are aggrieved by and have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 30.8.2007 passed by Sri Ajit Kumar Sinha, Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Patna. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case as they happen to be business rivals in carrying out trade of India made foreign liquor. It has also been submitted that for the said occurrence police submitted a charge sheet after 5 years against other accused persons except these two petitioners and in the supplementary charge sheet and on the basis of the statement of two witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. these two petitioners have been impleaded as accused. As a matter of fact the statement of those two persons recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. was subsequently sought to be confirmed by having them give their statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. - 2 - The learned counsel for the petitioners has questioned the bona fides and value and sanctity of the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded almost after five years. The further submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the informant does not carry a good reputation and several cases are pending against him. Alluring as the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners happen to be, but all these submissions by and large involves looking into disputed facts and figures which cannot be done in a proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C. Further all these are the defence of the petitioners which they can agitate in course of the trial by leading cogent evidence in support thereof. For the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly this application is dismissed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)