IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.11764 of 2005 1. PRAMOD SAH son of Late Hari Sah 2. Parsuram Yadav S/o Sri Jagdish Yadav 3. Ashok Kumar Manjhi, S/o Sri Jagidsh Manjhi 4. Brajesh Sah S/o Sri Baleshwar Sah 5. Baleshwar Sah S/o Late Sundar Sah 6. Arjun Sah S/o Late Bhikho Sah 7. Binod Kumar Sah S/o Late Hari Sah 8. Jagdish Manjhi S/o Late Sundar Manjhi 9. Mritunjay Kumar Sah S/o Late Jagdish Sah 10. Dhannjay Kumar Sah S/o Late Jagdish Sah 11. Santosh Kumar S/o Sri Gopal Sah 12. Mahesh Sah S/o Sri Brahmdeo Sah 13. Rakesh @ Paltan Sah S/o Sri Baleshwar Sah 14. Ram Bilash Sah S/o Late Kagji Sah 15. Narayan Prasad Das S/o Late Kameshwar Das 16. Surendra Prasad Sah s/o Sri Ram Bilas Sah 17. Nawal Kishore Sah S/o Sri Sitaram Sah 18. Bablu Sah s/o Sri Bramdeo Sah 19. Kaishaw Sah S/o late Dewal Sah 20. Nago Sah S/o Late Banarsi Sah 21. Siya Ram Sah son of Sri Basant Sah 22. Shiv Shankar Das S/o Sri Kameshwar Das 23. Bramdeo Sah S/o Late Koko Sah 24. Rajkishore Sah son of Late Tuntun Sah 25. Pawan Sah s/o Sri Nago Sah 26. Bhairo Sah s/o Sri Jagdish Sah 27. Vijay Kumar Sah S/o Late Jagdish Sah All petitioners resident of village-Barko, P.O. Barko, P.S. Amarpur, District- Banka. . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sri Nawal Kishore Chaudhary S/o Late Gajadhar Prasad, Resident of village Bharko, P.S. Amarpur, District- Banka. . . . . Opposite parties. For the Petitioners : Mr. Jay Shankar, Advocate, Mr. Mukul Jee, Advocate For the Oppo. party no.2 : Mr. Pashupati Pd Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 15/ 25.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In the instant application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 05.01.2004 passed in Amarpur P.S. case no. 154 of 2002, bearing G.R. No. 932 of 2002, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 469, 504, 505 B, 120 B, - 2 - 382 and 379 of the I.P.C. and the petitioners have been summoned to face trial. The main submission of the petitioners is that the Superintendent of Police, in its supervision note, found the case to be true under Sections 469 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. However, counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that 7 - 8 witnesses have supported the prosecution case. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order taking cognizance. However, it will be open to the petitioners to take all these points at the time of framing of charge. With the aforesaid observation, this application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)