IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.48865 of 2007 1. SANJAY SINGH @ BHUSHAN 2. DHANANJAY SINGH @ DHANANJAY KUMAR, BOTH SONS OF CHANDRIKA SINGH 3. PRINCE KUMAR, SON OF SANJAY SINGH 4. BALESHWAR SINGH, SON OF LATE YUGESHWAR SINGH 5. GANESH SINGH 6. UMESH SINGH 7. JAYENDRA SINGH @ JAICHAND SINGH, ALL SONS OF BALESHWAR SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- CHCHITROULI, P.S. BIHTA, DISTRICT-PATNA. ….PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF RAMDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHCHITROULI, P.S. BIHTA, DISTRICT PATNA. ….OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 03. 25.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The petitioners assail the order dated 21.08.2007, passed by the learned ACJM, Danapur, Patna in Complaint Case No. 323(C)/2007. By this order, cognizance under diverse sections of the Penal Code has been taken and summons have been directed to be issued against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the aforesaid order principally on the ground that the present prosecution is malicious one. It is contended that the complainant is an interested person. He refers to the document placed as Annexure-3 which is the order passed under section 107 Cr.P.C. in order to show that the name of the complainant does appear as one of the second parties to the said proceeding. It is contended that these facts have purposely been suppressed in the complaint. Learned counsel further relies upon a communication dated 13.6.2007 (Annexure-4) which is a report submitted by the Officer-in- - 2 - charge, Bihta police station to the Sub-divisional Police Officer, Danapur in order to highlight that the local police had reasons to indicate that the complainant was misusing his position as an Advocate. The order impugned indicates that the complainant was examined on S.A. and thereafter at least three witnesses were examined. On perusal of the materials available on record it was found and held that a prima face case is made out. Considering the scope of the provisions under which the impugned order has been passed, this Court finds no illegality and/or infirmity in the order impugned. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. The law permits the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum where all these issues can be agitated/raised. Let the petitioners avail the aforesaid remedy. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )