IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5722 of 2007 1. SURENDRA SINGH,son of Anandi Singh,resident of village-Jainagar,P.S.- Mausahi,Dist.-Katihar. 2. Gurudeo Singh,son of late Shokhi Mahaldar,resident of village- Jainagar,P.S.-Mausahi,Dist.-Katihar. 3. Geeta Devi,wife of Doman Singh,resident of village-Jainagar,P.S.- Mausahi,District-Katihar. 4. Parmeshwar Singh,son of late Jaleshwar Singh,resident of village-Mohanpur,P.S.- Mausahi,District-Katihar. 5. Varti Parihar,son of late Dhodhan Parihar,resident of village-Chhoti Bathnaha,Jainagar,P.S.-Mausahi, District-Katihar. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Kanhaiya Singh,son of late Sundar Singh,resident of village-Jainagar,P.S.- Mausahi,District-Katihar. ----------- 06/ 31-03-2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing of order dated 21.4.2006, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katihar has directed for issuance of summons against the petitioners-accused in C.A.No.2108 of 2004. In brief, complaint case is that accused persons held a meeting of Mansahi Circle Fishermen’s Co-operative Committee, Mohanpur and settled a Jalkar to persons, who are not the members of the Committee, in absence of the complainant, and at one stage it is said that he did not sign any of the papers(Bahi) but at later stage it is said that Ex-Secretary got his signature obtained on the pretext that meeting would be held on 12th. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is 2 that the matter was challenged before the competent authority i.e. the District Magistrate, complaint was also heard but no illegality was found committed on behalf of the petitioners. New members were introduced to decide any thing, which could not be opposed due to remaining of the complainant in minority, which is another aspect beyond the purview of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But once signature is denied and later that is found made by the complainant affecting the validity of introduction of the new members remaining from earlier is also quite beyond the purview of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further that is decided by the competent court, which is admitted in the complaint petition itself. I also agree with the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no case fixing criminal liability is made out from the alleged allegations made in the complaint petition. Accordingly, this application is allowed and order dated 21.4.2006 passed in C.A.No.2108 of 2004 is hereby quashed. AH/ ( Mandhata Singh, J. )