IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.383 of 2008 1. JAGO SAH @ JAGDISH SAH S/O LATE RAMU SAH 2. DASRATH SAH SON OF JAGO SAH 3. SARWAN SAH S/O JAGO SAH --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. FULAN DEVI W/O LATE SUDHIR MANDAL -- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioners : Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. J.K. Singh no.1, APP ----------- 03 08.09.2010 Petitioners are facing prosecution under diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Sections 376 and 457 of the Penal Code. The complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 which was sent for institution of F.I.R. The police investigated the case and submitted final form whereunder they were no sent up for trial. It is the petitioners‟ case that the police in fact recommended action against the informant/complainant under Sections 182 and 211 of the Penal Code. It is also the petitioner‟s case that cognizance has been taken on the strength of the aforesaid recommendation of the Investigating Officer. Since the protest petition was already pending from before, the Court took up the same and embarked on an enquiry in terms of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟). On a consideration of the materials on record cognizance only under Section 323 of the Penal Code was taken. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the complainant preferred Cr. Rev. no. 183 of 2006. Learned revisional Court, on a consideration of the materials available on record disposed of the same as contained in paragraph no. 5 of the order which runs thus:- “5. In the result, this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The case is remitted back to the learned lower court with a direction to hear the complainant afresh on the point of cognizance and to pass proper order on the basis of materials available on the record in accordance with law in the light of the observation made above.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the enquiry witnesses who have allegedly supported the case were hostile to them. It is also submitted that father-in-law of the complainant filed an affidavit in the Court admitting therein that his daughter-in-law (complainant/informant) was a loose character and that after death of his son she was residing with somebody else. It is seen that the matter has been remitted back to the Court for passing a fresh order in accordance law. This Court while declining to interfere with the impugned order would observe that the findings/observations made in the impugned order passed by Sessions Judge shall not prejudice the mind of the Court who has to apply afresh on the materials on record and pass an order in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)