IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55703 of 2007 1. SHAKILA BANO, WIFE OF BADRUL HASSAN ANSARI 2. BABAR HASSAN, SON OF BADRUL HASSAN ANSARI BOTH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KARIMCHAK, P.S. CHAPRA TOWN, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA. ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. ---- OPPOSITE PARTY 1ST SET 2. MAHARAJA, SON OF ABDUL KAYUM, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KARIM CHAK, P.S. CHAPRA TOWN, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA. ---- OPPOSITE PARTY 2ND SET ----------- 2 29.3.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance in Complaint Case No. 1123 of 2006, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra on 16.1.2007. The facts are that on 25.5.2006, petitioner no. 1 who was the Ward Commissioner of Chapra Municipality has filed a First Information Report under Sections 323, 448, 380 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the opposite party and his two sons demanded ransom from petitioner no. 1 and also abused them. Cognizance has been taken in this case and trial has already commenced. The present complaint case 1123 of 2006 has been filed alleging therein that after partition, the courtyard (lgu) was allocated to the share of opposite party no. 2. It is said that while repairs were being made, the petitioners have stopped opposite party from entering the courtyard and have abused them. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the case has been filed on 29.5.2006 and the occurrence took place on 25.5.2006. It is submitted that when the police came for the opposite party and as such the complaint case was filed. It is further submitted that the case 2 which has been filed is absolutely frivolous and false. All these aspects will be considered at the appropriate stage in the case as far as the order of cognizance is concerned. This Court finds no illegality in the order. This application is thus disposed of. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)