IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54635 of 2007 1. Ram Lagan Chaudhary, Son of Late Ram Roop Chaudhary. 2. Jai Mangal Chaudhary, Son of Ram Lagan Chaudhary. Both residents of Village- Narwara, P.S. Tariyani and District- Sheohar..................................................................Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Rabindra Kumar Jaiswal, Son of Late Motilal Jaiswal, resident of Village- Marbari Bazar, P.S. & District- Samastipur...Opposite parties. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate and Mr. Dinesh Jha, Advocate. For the Informant: Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate and Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, A.P.P. ----------- 4. 19.04.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the State. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.10.2007 passed in Tariyani P.S. Case No. 81 of 2005, Trial No. 1312 of 2007 whereby the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar at Sitamarhi has taken cognizance under Sections 147, 149, 341,323, 379, 307, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against four other persons vide Charge Sheet No. 135 of 2007 dated 28.09.2007, which is Annexure-2 2 to the present quashing application, but has not sent up these two petitioners. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheohar at Sitamarhi vide order dated 06.10.2007 took cognizance against these two petitioners also who were not sent up for trial without applying the mind to the actual materials on record. It is submitted that the present First Information Report was lodged on 08.06.2005 for an occurrence of 07.06.2005 whereby the specific case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1’s grand son was kidnapped for which Tariyani P.S. Case No. 80 of 2005 was lodged by Govind Chaudhary, the son of petitioner no.1, under Sections 364/54,25(1- (b)A and 26 of the Arms Act and the informant of the present case was caught on the spot hence in retaliation to the First Information Report lodged by the son of petitioner no.1 as retaliatory measure the present case has been lodged. From perusal of the records, it appears that as a retaliatory measure, the present First Information Report has been lodged but since the First Information Report of Tariyani P.S. Case No. 80 of 2005 was not 3 before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance hence at present I am not inclined to interfere on this ground. The other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the injuries are not as such which attracts the offences within the ambit of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances discussed above, it appears that the present case has been lodged as retaliatory measure to the case lodged on behalf of the petitioners hence the petitioners will file a discharge application annexing all the documents on record and that will be considered by the learned court below in view of the observations made above and also the materials collected in the case diary which led to submission of the final form against the petitioners. With this observation, this application is, accordingly, disposed of. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)