IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.17586 OF 2009 1. NAGENDRA MISHRA, SON OF LATE RAJ NARAYAN MISHRA 2. BRAJ BHUSHAN MISHRA @ BHUSHAN MISHRA, SON OF LATE LAXMI MISHRA 3. PRAMOD MISHRA. SON OF LATE LAXMI MISHRA 4. MANOJ MISHRA, SON OF SHRI SHAMBHU MISHRA ALL RESIDENT OF VILALGE DHANAW, POST OFFICE DHANAW, POLICE STATION BANIAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN (CHAPRA). AT PRESENT RESIDING AT SADAQUAT ASHRAM, POLICE STATION PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT PATNA …………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. DEOJHARI DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI TRILOKI MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHANAW (DAKSHIN TOLA), POST OFFICE DHANAW, POLICE STATION BANIAPUR, DISTRICT SARAN (CHAPRA) ……………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ******* 2 08/12/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.11.2008 by which the Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations in the First Information Report are unbelievable. It is submitted that even according to the First Information Report, the informant was sitting at her GUMTI (it is a small shop usually situated by the side of the road) and in the mean time, the petitioners came and one of them bit her cheek. It is also alleged that they took Rs. 10,000/- from the GUMTI. The allegation, according to the petitioners, is 2 improbable as a small GUMTI situated in a village would not be earning a cash amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The second ground raised on behalf of the petitioners is that petitioner no. 2 is an Advocate and is the conducting lawyer in a case in which the informant and her husband are accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the High Court and as such he along with his family members have been made accused in the present case. The defence raised on behalf of the petitioners may be good grounds during the trial. However, at this stage this Court cannot interfere with the order taking cognizance. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)