IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50502 of 2007 1. Hasni Yadav, S/o Late Sanichar Yadav. 2. Matuki Yadav, S/o Late Sanichar Yadav. Both residents of Village Fatehpur, P.S. Zero Mile, Distt. Bhagalpur. -------- Petitioners Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Smt. Matni Devi, W/o Late Radhe Yadav, Resident of Village Fatehpur, P.S. Zero Mile, District Bhagalpur. -------- Opp. Parties ----------- 3 29.03.2010 Heard Mr. Purushotum Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The order taking cognizance for offence under Sections 323, 380 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code is sought to be assailed by the petitioners on the ground that there is admittedly a land dispute between the parties and once the allegation of house trespass was not found to be substantiated, it would be wholly improbable if not absurd to accept that there would be any offence committed by the petitioners under Sections 323, 380 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. He has also submitted that there is no independent witness to support the version of the complainant and in fact there is a material inherent contradiction in the version of the 2 complainant opposite party no.2, which gets exposed on examination of her statement on solemn Affirmation. In the opinion of this Court, all these issues would not be relevant at the stage of taking cognizance wherein all that is required to be looked into by the court is a prima- facie case to be gathered from reading of the complaint petition and/or the statement of the witnesses recorded in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From reading of the complaint petition, it is more than clear that there were sufficient materials to constitute offence under Sections 323, 380 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order taking cognizance. The issue as to whether there is a contradiction in the statement of the complainant or whether there are no independent witnesses can only be looked into at the time of trial where both the parties will have opportunity to lead evidence on these points. That cannot be the ground for quashing of order taking cognizance. 3 Thus for the aforesaid reasons, this Court would not find any circumstance to interfere in the order taking cognizance and accordingly, this application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)