IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37074 of 2008 1. Rajendra Mahto, 2. Yogendra Mahto, both sons of Late Ram Khelawan Mahto, 3. Sanjay Mahto @ Sanjay Kumar Mahto, son of Rajendra Mahto, 4. Upendra Mahto, son of Late Ram Khelawan Mahto, all of Mohanpur, Ps Raiyam, district Darbhanga – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Veena Devi, wife of Ram Dayal Mahto, village Mohanpur, PS Raiyam, District Darbhanga – opp. parties. 3 18.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance, dated 15.3.2008 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in C.R. No. 1303/2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order of cognizance on the ground that the court ought to have considered that final report was submitted in this case and the petitioners were found not guilty, rather, the Investigating Officer found that this case has been filed because earlier a case was filed on behalf of the petitioners. The court has proceeded on the basis of the protest petition. Counsel for the petitioners submits that although final report was submitted on 28.5.2005, the court has delayed the matter by examining the complainant on S.A. two years thereafter and cognizance has been taken after one year. The court noticed that in fact there has been delay on behalf of the court in proceeding with the matter, nonetheless, it cannot be a ground for quashing the order of cognizance. The petitioners may raise whatever points have been 2 raised here at the time of framing of the charge. This application is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)