IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.11 of 2011 DR. RAM NARESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE SHYAM NARAYAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BIND, P.S. BIND, DISTRICT- NALANDA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT PATEL NAGAR, P.S. BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT- NALANDA. … COMPLAINANT/….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. KUMAR SURESH CHANDRA, SON OF LATE SHYAM NARAYAN. 3. MADHURI SINGH, WIFE OF KUMAR SURESH CHANDRA. 4. REVINDRA PRASAD, SON OF SHYAM PRASAD. OPPOSITE PARTY NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BIND, P.S. BIND, DISTRICT- NALANDA. … OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 11.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer is for condoning the delay of six days which intervened in filing the application seeking Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment and acquittal passed by Sri Rajnish Ranjan, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Biharsharif in Complaint Case no. 222(C) of 2004 (Trial No. 247 of 2009). The learned court below held that the prosecution had not proved the charges framed against the respondents and as such acquitted the three respondents. The prosecution case is that the complainant and his witnesses were going to Railway Station for boarding a train, 8-10 criminals appeared at a particular place and commanded the complainant to part with his belongings and, accordingly the complainant was relieved of his properties. Likewise 2 Madhuri Sinha was also relieved of her belongings alongwith others. Two witnesses appeared to support the charges which were under Sections379, 506, and 342 of the Penal Code. As per the evidence of the witnesses, the place where the occurrence had taken place was quite different. One witness said that the occurrence took place near pond whereas the other said that it took place near Malgudam. When the offence was being committed no resistance was offered by any of the witnesses nor any cry or hulla was raised soliciting help of persons who might be in the surrounding area. P.W.1 was the complainant who denied the defense suggestion that he had implicated the three respondents because there was earlier a complaint case between the parties vide Complaint Case No. 207(C) of 2003 in which he had also deposed earlier. Such suggestion was denied by P.W.1 but Exhibits- A and D were respectively documents produced by the defence to rebut the denial evidence of P.W.1. Veena Sinha (P.W.2) was equally interested in the prosecution on account of the same reasons as was suggested to P.W.1. The Learned Trial Judge appears finding that there was a suit pending between the parties also before Sub-Judge,VII, Biharsharif vide 3 T.S. No. 71 of 2002. In support of the above defense it produced Exhibit-E before the Trial Court in addition to that a police case was also between the parties vide Bihar P.S. Case No. 5 of 2004 as indicated by Exhibit- A. What appears from the above facts and circumstances is that the whole allegation was completely absurd and improbable inasmuch as the parties were known to each other on account of personal litigations both on criminal and civil side, still the P.Ws were not raising any cry nor they were lodging any police report so that the police could search the house of the appellant and other persons after arresting them. The Learned Trial Court was justified in passing the order of acquittal and considering that there is no reason, this Court could condone the delay in filing the Special Leave to Appeal. The merit of the appeal which might be preferred appeared so feeble as not permitting to grant Special Leave to Appeal to the applicant. The petition is dismissed. Ibrar/- ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)