IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26260 of 2008 RAM LAKHAN PANDEY & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2 18.5.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. The petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 5.5.2008 passed by the S.D.J.M., Lakhisarai in Complaint Case No.52 of 2003 whereby after remand of the matter by the revisional court, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under section 364A, 147/34 of the Penal Code. Opposite party no.2 filed a written complaint before the S.D.J.M., Lakhisarai alleging therein that one Malti Devi and Sita Devi came to his house and requested the complainant to allow Prahlad Pandey to go with them. In course of enquiry, the involvement of the petitioners came to light. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the complaint. The revisional court set aside the impugned order vide Cr.Revision no.18/308/03 with a direction to examine the matter and pass order in accordance with law. Thereafter the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 5.5.2008 has taken cognizance under sections 147, 364A/34 of the Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate ought to have examined some more witnesses before taking cognizance. Counsel for the Opposite party no.2 submits that it would appear from the order of the revisional court that the learned - 2 - KHAN Magistrate has dismissed the complaint on the ground of two days delay in filing of the complaint. He further submits that in course of enquiry the witnesses have supported the prosecution case and even the victim boy in his deposition has taken the name of the petitioners. The petitioners submit that the complaint was dismissed taking into consideration, totality of the circumstances and that the prosecution was malicious. The revisional court has not given any specific direction that the Magistrate would examined some more witnesses in enquiry. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order taking cognizance. This application is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioners to raise all these points at the time of framing of charge which would be considered without any prejudice. (S.P.Singh,J)