IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45476 of 2008 1. Chhotan Haider @ Mirza Mehadi Haider. 2. Sulaimar Haider @ Sulaiman Haider, both sons of Daudi Mian. 3. Imteyaz Haider. 4. Vicky Haider. 5. Raju Haider, Petitioner nos. 3,4 and 5 are sons of Sulaimar Haider @ Sulaiman Haider 6. Zeshan @ Zeeshan Haider, Son of Chhotan Haider @ Mirza Mehadi Haider, all are resident of Mogalpura, Fauzdar Kuan Khirani Chauk, PS Khajekalan, District Patna ---- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Zint Afroz Bano, Wife of Akhtar Husain, Resident of Ram Awtar Prasad Khatri Path, Diwan Mohalla, PS Khajekalan, District Patna. ---- Opposite Parties. ----------- 2 4.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.2008 by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 448, 323 and 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the petitioners snatched a wrist watch and also indulged in ‘Marpit’. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are agnates and there is actually a dispute with respect to encroachment of a Masjid property. A proceedings under Sections 133 and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated which was in favour of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 2 is an old and infirm person and it cannot be believed that he would indulge in such activities. All these aspects of the matter can be brought to the notice of the Court below at the stage of framing of charges. If the Court below finds that in fact the allegations leveled appear to be untrue in 2 view of the fact that there is a dispute pending between the parties over encroachment of a Masjid property, then the Court can come to a conclusion that the complaint petition filed is frivolous and vexatious. There is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)