IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55144 of 2007 1. Vidhyachal Singh. 2. Ashok Singh, both sons of late Sheo Rai Singh. 3. Ram Nath Rai Singh, son of Late Ram Janam Singh. 4. Sudhir Singh. 5. Vikrama Singh, both sons of Ram Nath Singh. 6. Satyadeo Singh, Son of late Jagdish Singh. 7. Baliram Singh. 8. Udal Singh, both sons of late Ram Janam Rai. 9. Ranjit Singh, Son of late Jagdish Singh, all resident of village- Baruri, Police Station- Nashriganj, District- Rohtas..................................................................Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sheo Pujan Singh, son of late Ram Krit Sah, resident of Village-Paruri, Police Station- Nashriganj, District-Rohtas. .....Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 23.04.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The application is for quashing the order dated 20.08.2007 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas at Sasaram has taken cognizance in complaint case no. 161 of 2007/ 3960 of 2007 under Sections 147, 323 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant has maliciously filed this present complaint as the land in question is recorded in the name of the father of the petitioners’ side. Moreover, for the part of the occurrence is 2 took place one month prior to the lodging of the First Information Report no complaint was lodged. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which it is stated in paragraph no.3 that the witnesses are examined at 244 Cr. P. C. level. Hence, in the changed situation, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, the petitioners will raise their all contentions while the filing of application for discharge that will be considered on its own merit. With the observations above, this application is dismissed. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)