IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41234 of 2007 BEERO PASWAN ALIAS BIRENDRA PASWAN SON OF LATE SHEETAL PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAXMIPUR (BARIYARPUR),P.S. PIRI BAJAR,DISTRICT LAKHISARAI ---- PETITIONER VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & PRABHAWATI DEVI – OPP.PARTIES ----- For the petitioner: Mr. Shanti Kumar For the State : Mr. Chandra Sen Pd.Singh, Addl.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2: M/s. Shailendra Narain Singh and D.R.Bhandari ----------- 05/ 29.03.2010 This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated 09.07.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in Suryagaraha P.S.Case No. 308 of 2006 (G.R.No. 985 of 2006) by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 323,354,448,379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner after perusing paragraphs 10,11,12,13,14 and 16 of the case diary despite the fact that the case was found to be true by the Investigating Officer only under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned is without application of mind and the paragraphs of the case diary discussed do not make out any offence against the 2 petitioner who is a Government employee and he is being harassed on account of extraneous reason and some land dispute. One Prabhawati Devi lodged an F.I.R. with Surayagaraha Police station on 25.11.2006 in which she alleged that the petitioner in drunken state of mind came to the door of the informant on 29.10.2006 at 10.00 A.M., abused her, pulled out her sari and asked to indulge in filthy work which was resisted. Thereafter he pulled out his pistol and pointed out to her and threatened her saying that if she does not indulge in bad work she would be branded as witch. The matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation final form has been submitted finding the case to be true only for offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there were no material at all to justify the order of cognizance but the court has taken cognizance in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel appearing for 3 opposite party no.2 has submitted that before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai protest petition was pending in which there was specific allegation that the petitioner has tried to outrage the modesty of the informant and it has been argued that after considering every aspect of the matters, cognizance was taken. No doubt, the court has not mentioned in the order that protest petition was perused but it was on the record. So the order of cognizance is correct and requires no interference by this Court. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has further pointed out that now the case has progressed much and after framing of charges, the evidence of the prosecution has started. It appears from the submissions that the protest petition was on the record on the date of taking cognizance. The protest petition has revealed that the offence was committed, so the court was justified in order taking cognizance. Not only that the case has progressed much and it is at the 4 stage of evidence, so it shall be abused of the process of the court to quash the order taking cognizance. In the result, there is no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. )