IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11864 of 2008 1. Ram Bahadur Mahto. 2. Ram Kishun Mahto @ Ram Krishna Mahto. 3. Ram Narayan Mahto. 4. Ramautar Mahto. All sons of Late Amir Lal Mahto, of Village- Shahpur Tole Basauna, P.S.Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur..........Petitioners. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR........................................Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 07.05.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In the present application, the order of cognizance dated 11.06.2003 in complaint case no. 381 of 2003, T.R. No. 2707 of 2003 has been challenged whereby the cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact the present case has been filed for redressal of a civil dispute for which the title suit is going on between the parties. I am not interfering only on the ground that the order of cognizance is dated 11.06.2003. However, the petitioners will raise all their contentions at the time of framing of charges if the charges have already not been framed and then the court below will consider the entire contentions of 2 the petitioners including the contention that for redressal of civil dispute the criminal forum has been maliciously chosen by the complainant and that the cognizance is barred under Section 195(I)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. With this observation, this application is disposed of. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)