IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.891 of 2009 RAM NARAYAN PASWAN @ BHOLA PASWAN -- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. BUCHIYA DEVI --- OPP. PARTIES. For the petitioner : Mr. Ram Narayan Mahto, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Aslam Ansari, A.P.P. ----------- 02 06.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is an accused of a complaint case lodged by opposite party no.2 under Sections 376 and 511 of the Penal Code. He is aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Cr. Rev. no. 457 of 2008 whereby the order rejecting the complaint of opposite party no.2 under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short ‘the Code’) was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Court below for further enquiry and order in accordance with law. As per complainant, she was sleeping on veramdah on the fateful night. Other family members were inside the house. The neighbour (petitioner) at the dead of night intruded into the house and made forcible attempt to commit rape on her which she fended. On ‘hulla’ raised by her, witnesses arrived and petitioner took to heels. In course of enquiry three enquiry witnesses were examined including the son, daughter-in-law and one another co- villager. Learned Magistrate made meticulous attempt to collate the evidence on record. It has also taken into consideration that a man of 40-45 years of age unarmed would not dare to commit rape on lady of sound mind who too was aged about 40 years. The 2 complaint was, accordingly, dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the complainant filed revision which was considered and disposed of by the order impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Referring to an F.I.R. lodged in 2003 (Annexure-4), it is submitted that the present prosecution is propelled by animosity. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, states that the complaint itself explains the delay in filing thereof. A mini trial before the actual trial is not conceived by the scheme as provided under the Code. Possible defence of an accused is also not required to be taken note of at the time of taking cognizance. The order passed by learned Magistrate gives an impression that it meticulously appreciated the evidence of the enquiry witnesses. In my view, said order does not conform to the requirement(s) of law. Learned revisional Court has, thus, rightly interfered with the said order. No legal infirmity is shown in the revisional order. The application is dismissed. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)