IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37741 of 2007 1. SATTO MANDAL @ SATYA NARAYAN MANDAL, S/o Rameshwar Mandal. 2. Lacho Mandal @ Lachhuman Mandal, S/o Late Jagtu Mandal. Both are the resident of Village/Mohalla-Sohtha, P.S.-Falka, District-Katiharo. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Jhunia Devi, W/o Biso Mandal, Resident of Village-Sohtha, P.S.-Falka, District-Katihar. ……..Opposite Parties. ----------- 04. 05.02.2010 Heard both the parties. This is an application for quashing the order of cognizance taken on 12.02.1998 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 330 of 1997 by which he has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 452 and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code which has been affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Katihar in Cr. Rev. No. 34 of 1998 by order dated 05.02.2007. The facts of the case are that initially a First Information Report was instituted numbered as Falka P.S. Case No. 132 of 1996 dated 18.08.1996 for the offences under Sections 452 and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code but the police after investigation submitted final report in the matter which was accepted by order dated 19.03.2007. However, in the meanwhile a protest petition had been filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 on 11.09.1996 - 2 - which was registered as Complaint Case No. 330 of 1997 and after examination of the complainant and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar was pleased to take cognizance by order dated 12.02.1998. The petitioner has based the present application mainly on the premise that the complainant is bitter litigant and she is in the habit of filing a number of cases against the present petitioner which has been enumerated in the petition. The Opposite Party No. 2 also compromised with the present petitioner in one of the cases on account of which it was referred to the Lok Adalat and final orders were based on the compromise. In my view, in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court is not in a position to look into the factual aspect of the case and the scope is very limited. Under the circumstances, I find no good ground for allowing this application and therefore the same is dismissed. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)