IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23392 of 1997 Abdul Hayat Mogal, Son of Hazi Md. Hanif, Resident of Saudgar Patti, Police Statiion Kishanganj, P.O. Kishanganj, District Kishanganj. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Maimuna Khatoon, Daughter of Late Maula Baux, Resident of Saudagar Patti, P.S. & P.O. Kishanganj, District Kishanganj. --------- Opposite Parties ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Amal Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Satnaryan Mishra, Adv. For the Opposite Party No.2 :- Mr. Binita Singh, Adv. 11 10.9.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court, merely because a complaint petition filed by the opposite party no.2 was sent by the Magistrate to the police for recording a police case and investigating it in terms of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., will not take away the right of the complainant-opposite party no.2 to even file a protest petition against the said investigation of the police or to get the cognizance taken on the basis of her averment made in the protest-cum-complaint petition, her solemn affirmation as also the witnesses examined under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. To that extent, the procedure followed by the court below in the instant case of accepting the final form submitted by the 2 police and proceeding to take cognizance on the basis of protest-cum-complaint petition and the statement under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. of the complainant and her witnesses, cannot be faulted with in law. Reference in the connection may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Mishra reported in AIR 1968 SC 117. Accordingly, this Court would find no merit in the first part of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submit that it must be an improbable case that a lady of 35 years will be entitled for pension under old age scheme. To that extent, he tried to draw the attention of this Court towards the submission of the complainant showing her age to be 40 years. In the opinion of this Court, what was the scheme, whether the opposite party no.2 was entitled therein or not or whether any person has been drawing such pension in the name of opposite party no.2 or not, cannot be made subject matter of an application under 3 Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as all these will require investigation on facts. That is, however, not permissible as no mini trial can be held on this score. No other point having been urged, this Court, therefore, must hold that the present application is wholly misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the questions as with regard to either the age of the complainant- opposite party no.2 or her being not entitled for old age pension by way of defence at the time of trial of the case. The trial court is also directed to ensure that the pending trial is taken up and concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)