IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8267 of 1998 1. MUKESH KUMAR KASHYAP, Son of Late Anirudh Prasad Resident of Mohalla-Babuganj, P.S.-Dehri, District-Rohtas. 2. Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, son of Dudh Nath Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-Pani Tanki, P.S.- Dehri, District-Rohtas. 3. Sri Bhagwan Singh, son of Ram Naresh Singh, Resident of Mohalla-Dhantolia, P.S.-Dehri, District-Rohtas. 4. Sudhir Ranjan Singh, son of Laxminarayan Singh, Resident of Village-Jakkhi Bigha, P.S.-Dehri, District-Rohtas. 5. Baban Singh, Son of Jagdish Singh, Resident of Village-Katar, P.S.-Indrapuri, District-Rohtas. 6. Sunita Kashyap, W/o Mukesh Kashyap, Resident of Mohalla-Babuganj, P.S.-Dehri, District-Rohtas. 7. Asha Srivastava, W/o Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Resident of Mohalla-Pani Tanki, P.S.-Dehri, District-Rohtas. 8. Urmila Devi, W/o Bhagwan Singh, Resident of Mohalla-Dhantolia, P.S.-Dehri, District-Rohtas. 9. Shila Singh, W/o Sudhir Ranjan Singh, Resident of Village-Jakkhi Bigha, P.S.-Dehri, District- Rohtas. ............... Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Raj Kumar Singh, Son of Late Kapildeo Singh, Resident of Village-Katar, P.S.-Indrapuri, District-Rohtas. ............... Opposite Parties. ----------- 8. 24.8.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for O.P.No.2. Once this Court has already dismissed this application as against petitioners no. 1 to 5 as is clear from the perusal of the order of this Court dated 5.5.1998, it would be difficult to give any different treatment to petitioners no. 6 to 9 in respect of the common impugned order 2 taking cognizance for offence under Section 420/406, 427/504 I.P.C. From a reading of the complaint petition as also the statement of the witnesses in course of enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. it would be found that the case of petitioners no. 6 to 9 is no better than that of petitioners no. 1 to 5. Any further comment on the case of the petitioners would only prejudice their prosecution and therefore, all that it can be said is that the impugned order taking cognizance at least does not suffer from any infirmity. The defence of the petitioners that there was no violation of the terms of the agreement executed by them in favour of O.P.No.2 can also be gone into at only during trial. It will be, therefore, open for petitioners no. 6 to 9 to raise these pleas in their defence at the time of trial. That being so, this application is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to raise all these questions at the time of trial. 3 The records of the court below should be sent back immediately. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/