IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51205 of 2007 1. SURYA DEO PANDEY, son of late Narsingh Pandey, 2. PAPPU PANDEY, son of Suryadeo Pandey, 3. HANUMAN PANDEY, SON OF Lal Deo Pandey, 4. KAPIL PANDEY, son of late Narsingh Pandey, All resident of village – Lok Nath Bairwan, P.S. – Mali, Distt. – Aurangabad. --------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. LALITA DEVI, wife of Chandu Paswan, resident of village - – Lok Nath Bairwan, P.S. – Mali, Distt. – Aurangabad. ------------ Opp. Parties. ------------ 5 02.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and Opposite Parties. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 16.07.2007, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Mali P.S. Case No. 18 of 2006 taking cognizance under Section 341/323 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(X) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the instant case is based on complaint case no. 1055/2005 filed by opposite party no. 2 against five persons including four petitioners in para-5 of the complaint petition. There is a reference of earlier written information to the concerned police station regarding the occurrence, copy of which is annexed as Annexure – 2. On perusal of Annexure – 2, there is nothing against - 2 - the petitioners rather, allegation has been leveled against only one person who is Lal Deo Pandey non petitioner. Further, it is submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the opposite parties tried to support the impugned order and submitted from Annexure – 2, it appears that the Sanha entry was made by police as per its own statement contrary to what was dictated by the complainant. The complainant opposite party no. 2 has filed the complaint petition much after the occurrence and the petition itself she has mentioned her written information given to the concerned police officer and she has only grievance that no action was taken under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In spite of her repeated run/chase causing delay in filing of the instant case but, at no place it is mentioned that the information given earlier lacks some more factual aspect of the case. Since Sanha entry at Annexure – 2, which is the first information of the complainant opposite party no. 3 wherein there is absolutely nothing against the petitioners, of course, their names figure in the complaint petition, file subsequently, with some allegations in continuance of offences for which information had already been given to the police earlier wherein their names does not figure. Any subsequent addition in the information given at - 3 - the first instances specially adding the names of more persons after much delay causes doubt against the addition and in view of the earlier statements, they are not tenable. Consequently, with respect to petitioners, impugned order is quashed. Accordingly this application stands allowed. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)