IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.2622 of 2006 1. DEVKI DEVI wife of Kameshwar Mahto. 2. Pankaj Kumar Mahto. 3. Sanjit Kumar Mahto, both sons of Kameshwar Mahto 4. Kameshwar Mahto son of Amal Mahto. All resident of village Sukhpur, Police Station Supaul, District- Supaul. . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ramchandra Chaudhary, son of Mahtab Chaudhary, resident of village Sukhpur, Police Station Supaul, District- Supaul. . . . . . Opposite parties. ----------- 8/ 19.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In the instant application, the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 23.12.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr. Revision No. 87 of 2005(S) as well as order dated 19.04.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Supaul in Complaint no. 870 C of 2004, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 341, 323 and 379 of the I.P.C. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant complaint has been filed, as retaliation to the earlier complaint filed by accused no.4, being Complaint case no. 859 C of 2004. He further submits that no offence under Section 406 or 379 of the I.P.C. would be made out, as the complainant did not specifically state as to who specifically asked money. He further submits that the allegation against Devki Devi, petitioner no.1 for tearing the shirt, is utterly false. Counsel for the complainant states that the defence of the accused would not be looked at this stage. Counsel for the complainant states that the complainant in S.A. stated that a sum of - 2 - Rs. 15,000/- was demanded by petitioner no.4, which was given to him. Having regard to the facts of the case, this Court finds that the allegation of asking money is vague and not specific. I further find that the allegation against Devki Devi of tearing shirt of the complainant also seems to be untenable. Thus, I find that prosecution against petitioner no.1 would be an abuse of process of court, as such the criminal proceeding as against her is quashed. I further find that the prosecution under Section 406 of the I.P.C. against petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is also not prima facie made out, and as such the criminal prosecution as against them is quashed. However, taking of cognizance against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 323, 341 and 379 of the I.P.C. is sustainable. Nonetheless, it will be open to petitioner nos. 2 and 3 to raise all these points at the time of framing of charge that no offence under Section 323, 341 and 379 of I.P.C. is made out. The case would proceed against petitioner no.4, Kameshwar Mahto, under Sections 406, 323, 341 and 379 of the I.P.C. With the aforesaid direction, this application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)