IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42819 of 2007 DHANESHWAR MANDAL SON OF LATE DYANI MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LADUGARH, P.S.- JANKI NAGAR, DISTRICT-PURNEA ------ PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------ OPP.PARTY ----------- 2 07-01-2009 Heard Mr.Bijay Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 17.8.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.8, Purnea in Cr.Revision No.360 of 2006, whereby he has dismissed the Revision application and confirmed the order dated 10.8.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in Banmankhi ( Jankinagar ) P.S.Case no.126 of 2005, whereunder he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 504 I.P.C. It appears that one Bhagia Devi filed a complaint bearing no.848 of 2005 on 20.5.2005 and on the same being sent to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the aforesaid Banmankhi P.S. came to be recorded. After due investigation the police submitted a chargesheet under Section 504 Cr.P.C .and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after going through the records took cognizance and transferred the case to the court of Sri B.K.Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, for disposal. The allegation against the petitioner is that although the - 2 - complainant is a co-sharer of the accused persons and had engaged labourers to repair her house and when her husband had gone to plough his land, all the accused persons surreptitiously arrived and entered into her courtyard and accused Dhaneshwar Mandal abused the complainant in filthy language and when the complainant remonstrated for using such language , the accused persons again abused and assaulted her and took away several articles from the house. She has also alleged that the accused also snatched her ornaments. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no material in the case diary to make out the case under Section 504 I.P.C. and the courts below have erred in taking cognizance and dismissed the revisional application filed by him. I am not impressed by the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact of Section 504 I.P.C. having been made out in view of the orders of the courts below appear to be concurrent finding of the fact which cannot be interfered with. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-