IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Misc. No. 8534 of 2006 1.MANOJ RAM, Son of Late Bhisam Ram 2.KISHORI RAM, Son of Late Bhisam Ram 3.DHARMENDRA RAM, Son of Keshari Ram 4.ARJUN RAM, Son of Arjun Ram 5.SANJAY RAM, Son of Arjun Ram 6.SANGEETA DEVI, Wife of Manoj Ram All Resident of Village Nimha, P.S. Neemchak, Bathani, District Gaya. …………..Petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Gaya 3.SACHCHIDANAND YADAV, Son of Sitaram Yadav 4.MITHLESH YADAV, Son of Sitaram Yadav 5.SHIV KUMAR YADAV, Son of Sitaram Yadav 6.SANJAY YADAV, Son of Bhagwan Yadav 7.SANJAY YADAV, Son of Late Wazir Yadav All opposite party no. 3 to 7 are Resident of Village Nimha, P.S. Neemchak Bathani, District Gaya. ……………..Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary, A.P.P. 08. 07.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 7. (2.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the whole proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1300 of 2005 pending in the Court of Shri Vidhya Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya besides order dated 5.12.2005 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. (3.) The relevant short facts of this case is that between the 2 parties there is a dispute with respect to their respective claims over particular piece of land and opening of doors of the constructed area. (4.) Petitioner No. 1 had got Neemchak Bathani P.S. Case No. 39 of 2005 instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 302, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code on 3.9.2005 against prosecution side where in female child aged about 4 to 5 years sustained fire arm injury and one person assaulted by lethal weapons had to loose his life sometime after the occurrence in absence of proper treatment. The instant complaint against the petitioners was filed on 14.9.2005 with assertion that they on the relevant date and time arrived at the house of complainant, called and assaulted him in that course entered inside the room assaulted female members also and took some articles belonging to them. (5.) In the complaint case after recording statement of complainant on solemn affirmation and of few witnesses during enquiry cognizance was taken giving rise to instant case. (6.) The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the case in hand is nothing, but a counter blast of earlier case lodged at their instance against the complainant and his associates who just to save their scheme with falls allegations come out with their case. (7.) Learned counsel for the petitioners except the above submissions could not point out any other illegality or error committed by the court below while taking cognizance in the case in hand. This is not the stage when any case may be turned down at its initial stage only because of submissions that it is a counter blast of earlier case filed by 3 other side. Since enmity is known as a weapon cutting both the sides, at this stage possibility of commission of offences as alleged in the case in hand in retaliation of earlier occurrence, if any cannot be also ruled out. (8.) Thus finding no merit, this application is hereby dismissed without affecting the right of the petitioners to agitate their points before the trial court at appropriate stage including hearing on the point of charge and the submissions shall be considered on their own merit without being prejudice of instant order or any observation made above which is not merit of the case. Praveen/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)