IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49270 of 2007 1. SHUSHIL PAL (PANDIT), S/O LATE RAGHU PANDIT. 2. KIRAN DEVI W/O SHUSHIL PANDIT @ SHUSHIL PAL ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILL. SINGHIYA DIWANGANJ, P.S. SADAR MUFASSIL, DIST. PURNIA. ---- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJDHAN PANDIT S/O LATE MUSHHAR PANDIT R/O VILL. SUJAPUR, P.S. BARARI, DIST. KATIHAR --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 06. 25.03.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners assail the order taking cognizance dated 26.03.2007, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia, in Purnia Sadar (Mufassil) P.S. Case no. 277 of 2006, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467,364, 468/34 of the Penal Code. It would appear from the impugned order itself that the learned Magistrate having been satisfied from perusal of the police report including the F.I.R. and the case diary, that a prima facie case for said offence(s) is made out against the petitioners, and as such cognizance was taken. Petitioners herein are husband and wife. Complainant is the husband of ‘Moushi’ of petitioner no.1. Allegation as per complaint is that the complainant had acquired a small piece of land in the year 1989, in the name of his wife Sudama Devi. The accused persons arrived at his house and took wife of the complainant to their place of residence. She was not allowed to come back. When the complainant went to the petitioner’s house and requested them to allow the complainant to 2 come back home the same was refused and it was requested that she may be allowed to reside there for few more days. Subsequently it was revealed to the complainant that a document of absolute sale was fraudulently brought in to existence by which the land belonging to the complainant (owned in the name of wife of the complainant) was sold in favour of petitioner no.2 who is wife of petitioner no.1. When the complainant visited their house, to his utter surprise, it was found that the wife of the complainant was not there. On these allegations, initially a complaint was lodged which was later treated as an F.I.R. The police investigated the matter and having found sufficient materials submitted charge sheet. On that basis learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners criticized the impugned order primarily on the ground that there is unexplained delay of about 6-7 months in filing the complaint which was lodged subsequently on 21.01.2006. It is next contended that the supervising police officer, in course of supervision, has expressed apprehension of false implication as well. Referring to annexure-4, it is contended that the villagers made a joint application before the investigating authority stating therein that the allegations were concocted and made for ulterior purposes. On these facts, it is contended that there is no legal evidence on record to justify the impugned order. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance 3 Magistrate is only required to satisfy itself about existence of prima facie case to continue with the criminal proceeding. According to him, a mini trial at this stage is not permissible in law. It is also pointed out that the lady (wife of the complainant) is still traceless. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the view that no illegality as such has been committed by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance under the impugned order necessitating interference by this Court. The application has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)