IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55145 of 2007 1. CHANDESHWAR CHOUDHARY, son of Late Baidyanath Mahto. 2. MITHLESH KUMAR @ MITHLESH CHOUDHARY, son of Chandeshwar Choudhary 3. VINOD KUMAR @ VINOD CHOUDHARY, son of Bindeshwar Choudhary 4. SITA RAM MAHTO, son of Late-Sheolal Mahto 5. MUNSI DAS, son of Late Jagdeep Das. All resident of village-Thahra Gopalpur, P.S.-Waini Pusa, District- Samastipur. ……….Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ram Prasad Singh, son of Moti Mahto, resident of village-Gopalpur, P.S.- Waini Pusa, District-Samastipur, at present Punpun, P.S.-Punpun, District-Patna. ……..Opposite Parties ----------- 02. 19.04.2010 The present application has been filed for quashing the entire prosecution of Complaint Case No. 166(C) of 2007 including the order dated 22.08.2007 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 147, 323, 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been very fairly submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that though the trial has commenced but the Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not fettered by the commencement of the trial. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 are own brothers and from the petitioners’ side Tajpur Waini P.S. Case No. 163 of 2003 was registered on 02.07.2003 against O.P. No. 2 and the trial is going on and in order to put pressure on the petitioners, the present complaint 2 has been lodged as retaliatory measure. It is also submitted that during enquiry the witnesses who have been examined, their statements suggest that they are not aware even about the age of the accused persons as the age of the son(petitioner No. 2) has been stated as 40 years while the age of the father(petitioner No. 1) has been stated as 32 years. It is true that under 482 Cr.P.C. the powers are not fettered if the trial has commenced but the inherent power has to be exercised in the interest of justice as the ends of justice is higher than the ends of law. More over rival contentions can only be proved by leading of evidences. Hence, in that view of the matter, since the trial has commenced, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Court below. The application stands dismissed. However, prima facie it appears that as a retaliatory measure the present case has been lodged and the enquiry witnesses’ evidence suggest that they were not even acquainted with the accused persons but all the aforesaid facts have to be proved by adducing evidences. Therefore, petitioners are given liberty to raise all these issues during trial. The application stands dismissed. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)