IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7014 of 2008 ***** 1. Rohit Mandal, son of Soren Mandal. 2. Sohagu Roy, son of Late Sundar Roy. 3. Kokil Roy, son of Sri Dinesh Roy. 4. Suresh Roy, son of Late Bijendra Roy. 5. Bhumin Mandal, son of Late Vegan Mandal. 6. Dilip Mandal, son of Lakhin Mandal. 7. Anand Mandal, S/o Late Nagen Mandal. 8. Vikash Mandal, S/o Sachin Mandal. 9. Bhuven Roy, S/o Late Atul Roy. 10. Dilip Roy, S/o R.N. Roy. 11. Amin Murmu, S/o Soni Murmu. 12. Raten Verman, S/o Chiram Verman. 13. Bimal Verman, S/o Birashpati Verman. 14. Sumir Murmu S/o Tala Murmu 15. Nirmal Roy S/o Sundra Roy. Sl. No. 1 to 15 resident of village- Jaitum, P.S.-Bhalghangike, District-Malda. 16. Rawan Hansda S/o Late Hapna Hansda. 17. Ravi Hansda, S/o Sri Bharat Hansda. 18. Hapna Hansda, S/o Late Chunda Hansda. Sl. No. 16 to 18 resident of village- Diggipara, P.S. Bhabhangola, District-Malda. 19. Khara Murmu S/o Samay Murmu resident of village- Diggipara, P.S. Bhabhangola, District-Malda. 20. Marang Beshra, S/o Late Muchuwa Veshra, village- Diggipara, P.S. Bhabhangola, District-Malda. 21. Manik Soren, S/o Supaul Soren resident of village-Bhuti Danga, P.S. Babbangola, District- Malda. 22. Sarkar Kishu S/o Late Burka Kisku resident of village- Patashdanga, P.S. Babhangola, District-Malda. 23. Manoranjan Verman, S/o Bhushan Verman, resident of village- Patashdanga, P.S. Babhangola District-Malda. 24. Mihir Roy, S/o Bulen Roy, resident of village- Bishtoput, P.S. Habibpur, District-Malda. 25. Guju Verman, S/o Mantu Verman, resident of village- Nimbari, P.S. Babibpur, District- Malda. 26. Julu Roy, S/o Sudhir Roy resident of village- Nawab Nagar Chaipara, P.S. Tapan, District Doshin Dinajpur. 27. Robin Uraon, S/o Samehu Uraon resident of village- Mirjapur, P.S. Babhangola, District- Malda. …. …. Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar …. …. Opposite party ----------- 2. 10.4.2009. In all there are 27 petitioners in the present case, they want quashing of the order dated 3.2.2007 passed in Criminal Revision - 2 - No.111/06 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Katihar as well as the order dated 3.4.2006 taking cognizance by the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in G.R. Case No.15/06 arising out of Katihar P.S. Case No.9/06. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a case was instituted against certain persons for being in possession of forged railway tickets while traveling from Malda to Darbhanga, based on which F.I.R. was instituted, investigation was made but final form was submitted against these petitioners and no doubt a charge-sheet was filed against the accused based on the material. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance of the Act against these petitioners while deferring with the final form has not indicated at all as to what was the material based on which he wanted to defer with the police. In absence of any disclosure of material and without indicating the basic facts the order taking cognizance is misplaced. In this regard petitioners rely on one decision of the High Court in the case of Anand Kumar Khatri v. State of Bihar, 2004(4) PLJR 455. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that without considering this aspect of the matter the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Katihar went on a tangent and dismissed the revision application by missing the legal points urged. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners seems to be borne out on a plain reading of the order taking cognizance by the Railway Judicial Magistrate and no reasoning has been - 3 - given by the Additional District and Sessions Judge the petitioners have made out a case for interference. The quashing application is allowed. The order dated 3.2.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No.111/06 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Katihar and the order dated 3.4.2006 taking cognizance by the Railway Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in G.R. Case No.15/06 arising out of Katihar Rail P.S. Case No.9/06 are quashed in so far as it relates to the present petitioners. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)