IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27696 of 2009 1. Niraj Ranjan, son of Tej Narain Biswas, 2. Yogendra Gupta @ Yogendra Prasad Gupta, both of village Baretra, PS Kasba, district Purnea – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Gohi Lal Mandal, son of Pappu Mandal, village Bareta, PS Kasba, district Purnea – opp. parties. 2 9.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the informant. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 1.7.2009 passed in Kasba PS Case No. 70/2009 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea on several grounds. The first ground is that the FIR has been instituted after a period of fifteen days which indicates that it is after thought and ought not be believed by the court. The second submission raised on behalf of the petitioner is that a Sanha was filed on the very next day in which the informant had not mentioned the name of any of the accused persons. The third ground is that in fact two of the witnesses who have been examined have taken the name of Niraj Ranjan, petitioner no.1 as a participant in the occurrence. None of the witnesses have stated that petitioner no.2 Yogendra Gupta was also present at the place of occurrence and there is nothing to support the allegation that petitioner no.2 had paid the money to petitioner no. 1 to set fire the house or kitchen of the informant. As far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, there appears to be virtually no evidence regarding his participation in the occurrence and, therefore, it cannot be said that he could be held responsible for 2 offences under section 436 of the Penal Code. Accordingly the impugned order taking cognizance is quashed so far it relates to petitioner no.2. On perusal of the FIR and the evidence which has transpired in the case diary it appears that some of the witnesses have mentioned that they had seen petitioner no.1 running away from the place of occurrence. Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that such a statement made after fifteen days of the occurrence is not reliable and cannot have any value even if it is accepted that it is true in view of the fact that the delay in lodging g the FIR without any explanation creates a doubt in the mind of the court regarding the truthfulness of the matter. This court, however, cannot take into account the submissions made on behalf of petitioner no. 1 at the stage of cognizance. These aspects may be raised at the appropriate stage in the case. This application is, thus, allowed in part so far it relates to petitioner no.2 and so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, this application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)