IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.30196 of 2009 Musaraf Khan Versus The State Of Bihar ------------------- For the petitioner : Mr Rashid Alam, Advocate For the State : Mr A.M.P. Mehta, A.P.P. ------- 02 18.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission. In my view, this petition can be disposed off at the admission stage itself. This petition has been preferred under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing the order dated 26.2.2008 passed in Kaler P.S. Case no.21/2007 by which and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad took cognizance for the offences under sections 147,148,149,448, 427,504,323,403 and 201 of the IPC against the petitioner and others after submissions of the charge sheet and subsequently, he rectified the defect occurred in order dated 26.2.2008 and in place of section 403, he added 302 of the IPC vide order dated 22.9.2008 which has also been challenged by the petitioner in this quashing petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that police has not properly investigated 2 the matter and, as a matter of fact, on 19.6.2007 at about 7.45 P.M. information regarding commission of murder of petitioner’s father by brother of the informant was given to the concerned police and thereafter on 20.6.2007 at 6.00 P.M. Kaler P.S. Case no.21/2007 under section 302 and other minor sections of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the brother of the informant as well as several other accused persons including informant of the present case and in retaliation to the aforesaid case, present case was filed by the informant on 20.6.2007. It is contended by him that admittedly, on 19.6.2007 petitioner was present before the police station and he gave information regarding murder of his father on 19.6.2007 at 7.45 P.M. but in the present case, time of the occurrence has been shown as 7.30 P.M. on 19.6.2007 and the aforesaid aspect has not been investigated by the Investigating officer. In my view, the aforesaid alleged discrepancy would be seen at the time of trial because the said so-called discrepancy requires deeper investigation which is only possible in course of the trial. It would appear from perusal of the first information report of the present case that the specific 3 case of the informant is that when the father of the petitioner was murdered, the petitioner and others attacked the house of the informant and committed murder of her mother in retaliation to the aforesaid occurrence. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is obvious that there is case and counter case between the parties and truth of both the cases can only be decided in course of the trial and it is not a proper stage to give any finding regarding merit of both the cases. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that this petition is devoid of merit and must be dismissed at the admission stage itself. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned for needful. Shahid ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)