IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.4593 OF 2008 1. PUNAM DEVI, WIF EOF BIREDNRA SAH 2. PRATIMA DEVI, WIFE OF SHAMBHU SHARAN PRASAD 3. SHAMBHU SHARAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAM SWAROOP SAH 4. RAJU KUMAR @ RAJU SAH, SON OF SHRI SHAMBHU SHARAN PRASAD ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARIHANIA, POST OFFICE DHAKA, OUT POST PACH PAKRI BAZAR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN ………………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. UMA SHANKAR SAH, SON OF SHRI RAJENDRA SAH, VILLAGE KHARIHANIA, POLICE STATION DHAKA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN …………………………………………………………………….…..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. SUBODH KUMAR SINHA, ADVOCATE MR. PRABHAT KUMAR DAS, ADVOCATE FOR O. P. NO. 2 :- MR. R. K. P. SINGH, ADVOCATE MR. MANISH KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. **************** 4 18/03/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, Opposite Party No. 2 and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance dated 24.08.2007 on the ground that the contents of the complaint petition do not make out any offence against the petitioners 1 and 2. It is also stated that the complaint petition does not disclose or explain the injuries received by the petitioner no. 3 Shambhu Sharan Prasad which also goes to indicate that the complaint case has been filed as a defence and is malicious in nature. The petitioner no. 3 has instituted a case for 2 the same occurrence in which his statement was recorded in the Referal Hospital, Dhaka at 10:30 AM for an occurrence took place on the same day i.e. 30.04.2007 in which it is alleged that Uma shankar Sah, the complainant, had inflicted a kudal blow on the head of the petitioner no. 3 whereas in the complaint case, it has been alleged that this petitioner has abused the complainant and had also assaulted him on the head. It is also said that Raju Kumar had inflicted blows with fists. Considering the entire allegations in the complaint case, this Court finds that there is no specific allegations against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 except omnibus allegation saying that they also came to the place of occurrence and assaulted the complainant. Infact the allegations are vague. It is apparent that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have been dragged in this case with a malicious intention to pressurize the petitioner no. 3 in the FIR case instituted by him. Accordingly, I quash the order dated 24.08.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. C-252 of 2007 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sikarahana at Motihari as far as petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 are concerned. This application is allowed in part. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)