IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC NO.264 OF 1998 1. YOGENDRA PRASAD SHARMA 2. DAYA SHANKAR PRASAD SHARMA S/O AND YOGENDRA PRASAD SHARMA 3. SHEOKALA DEVI W/O YOGENDRA PRASAD SHARMA MOTIJHIL, AYODHYA PRASAD LANE, KAZI MOHAMMADPUR, MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. VICE CHAIRMAN, MUZAFFARPUR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUZAFFARPUR 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MRDA, MUZAFFARPUR 3. ASSTT. ENGINEER, MRDA 4. JUNIOR ENGINEER, MRDA 5. MAHESH TIWARY, MOTIJHIL, AYODHYA PRASAD LANE, KAZI MOHAMMADPUR ----------- 7. 30.09.2010. Heard Mr. Jawahar Dhari Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of respondents even today or on the previous date. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 died during pendency of the writ petition leaving behind son and wife, who are petitioner no.2 and 3 respectively in the writ petition. Office is directed to delete name of petitioner no.1. Petitioners pray for quashing the cognizance taken under the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act on 3.3.1998 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. C31/98 (Tr.No. 1467/98) on a complaint filed by respondent no.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier Complaint Case No. 25-2/94 was filed by respondent no.5 regarding alleged construction made by the petitioner and on due enquiry, the allegation was found to be malicious and false and ultimately by order dated 13.6.1996, passed by respondent no.1 the 2 aforesaid complaint case was dropped. During pendency of the aforesaid case spot verification was mad by the Executive Engineer, respondent no.2 on 28.4.1994. Learned counsel submits that again Mahesh Tiwari got a complaint filed through fictitious person, namely, Ranjit Singh. Officials made spot verification and submitted the report stating that no new construction was made and houses are very old much prior to the sanction of PRDA. However, a complaint was forwarded under Memo no. 235 dated 28.2.1998 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. On receipt of prosecution report, the learned Magistrate registered the same and by order dated 3.3.1998 took cognizance under section 52 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act This Court finds the impugned prosecution is also of the year 1996. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, any prosecution under section 52(B) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act is bad in law which is quashed. Shashi. ( Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)