IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6053 of 2008 1. Binod Singh. 2. Guddu Singh. Both sons of Babulal Singh, resident of Village- Dudhaila, police station- Jamhore, District- Aurangabad at present resident of village- Obra(near Block Office), P.S. Obra, District- Aurangabad. ..........Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Radheshyam Singh, Son of Late Chedami Singh, resident of Village- Tendua Harikesh, Police Station- Obra, District- Aurangabad..........................................................Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 28.04.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The application is for quashing the order dated 23.01.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.1, Aurangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 316 of 2007/ 464 of 2007 whereby the application of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected. It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to land dispute the present case was lodged. Moreover, no injury was caused to the informant’s side and above all the petitioners were not present at the place of occurrence. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioners were named in 2 the First Information Report and charge sheet was submitted, however, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners particularly the alibi in my view can not be looked into at this stage. In view of the judgment reported in 2008(14)1 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the documents of defence may also be looked into if it is of such a nature that it nullifies the whole prosecution case. The present case does not fall within the purview of aforesaid parameter. Hence, in that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all their contentions during the trial. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)