IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9678 of 2011 Buchchi Kamat Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr ----------- 3/ 21/10/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional P.P. for the State. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner insists to summon the O.P. No.2, the complainant which I do not see justified. Petitioner has challenged order dated 13.08.2010 passed by 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Supaul, Saharsa by which the learned Sessions Judge had set aside the order of cognizance taken by Sri. R.K. Chaudhary, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Supaul against the petitioner under Section 354 of the IPC holding that prima facie, a case under Section 323,376/511 of the IPC is made out. I have gone through the allegation which the complainant/O.P No.2 had alleged in the complaint petition to the extent that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, accused has caught hold her, torn her frock, broken her string, and during such event was gagged. Her sister along with her parents awaken on account of which the accused fled away. The aforesaid part so alleged no way justifies application of 376/511 of the IPC on 2 its face as there was attempt to ravish. Apart from this, from order impugned it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge had not appraised the statement of the witnesses including S.A. while coming to the conclusion and on account thereof, the order impugned happens to be non reasoned one. Learned APP fairly concedes. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 13th August 2010 passed by 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Supaul, Saharasa passed in connection with Cr. Revision No. 175/2008 is set aside. Consequent thereupon, petition is allowed restoring the order of learned Magistrate. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)