IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.8323 of 2005 1. RAM PRAVESH RAM son of late Nagina Ram. 2. Shambhu Chandra Kishor son of Ram Pravesh Ram. 3. Ramesh Prasad son of Vishwanath Prasad. 4. Sanjay Kumar son of Ramesh Prasad All residents of Mohalla- Shubh Karan, P.S. Ara Muffasil, District- Bhojpur. . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sheo Narayan Prasad Keshari son of late Dayal Prasad, resident of village- Shubh Karan Ganj, P.S. Ara Mufasil, Dist. Bhojpur. . . . . Opposite Parties. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ----------- 8/ 11.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 16.04.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara, Bhojpur in Complaint case no. 1191 (c) of 2003 / Tr. No. 1829 of 2004. The complainant alleged that when he along with his uncle reached near Sati Sthan, accused Shambhu Chandra Kishor and Sanjay Kumar caught hold of his collar and ordered to surrender the money. It is further alleged that accused Ram Pravesh Prasad and Ramesh Prasad pointed pistol and snatched Rs.2000/ and 2200/- from the pocket of fullpant and Kurta. Learned counsel submits that the instant case is a counter blast to the earlier case filed by petitioner Ram Pravesh Ram being Ara (Muffasil) P.S. case no. 16 of 2003 dated 31.01.2003 under Sections 341, 323, 325,504, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and other provisions of SC/ST Act. Learned counsel submits that the instant case has been filed by the complainant in order to pressurize these petitioners to withdraw - 2 - the case filed by the petitioner’s side. Learned counsel submits that the instant case has been filed to take revenge and as such, sought for quashing the order taking cognizance. It would appear from the complaint case that the complaint case unfolds prima facie allegations against the petitioners. Some of the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The points raised by the petitioners can be a defence. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order taking cognizance. However, it will be open to the petitioners to raise all these points at the time of framing of charge. With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)