IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35109 of 2008 Indradeo Sah, Son of Mishri Lal Sah, Resident of Village Chauhatta, PS Kishanpur, District Supaul ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Mangru Devi, Wife of Babujee Das, Resident of Village Chauhatta, PS Supaul, District Supaul. --- …..Opposite Parties For the Opposite Party : Mr. Rajiva Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, A.P.P. ----------- 4 12.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Oppostie Party. This application has been filed against the order dated 22.2.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in Kishanpur PS Case No. 115 of 1999, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On investigation final form was submitted as far as this petitioner is concerned. On 2.7.2002 notices were issued to the complainant to be heard on the final form. Apparently nothing was done by the Court below and the file was some how left unattended. In the year 2007, the informant wakes up and files an application that the Court may take a decision in the matter. These applications along with application are filed by one Vimal Kumar Kamat who is not the informant of this case, rather has nothing to do with the case were taken up by the Court. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner this Vimal Kumar Kamat is inimically deposed towards the petitioner and is in the habit of implicating innocent people in the cases of this nature. 2 In any event, after five years, the file was located and thereafter cognizance was taken by the Court below differing with the final form by referring to paragraphs 26, 33, 52, 53 and 83 of the Case Diary for the purposes of indicating that the petitioner was involved in the said occurrence. The main argument on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner is that the informant along with Vimal Kumar Kamat has managed the affairs and has got the records manipulated. It is submitted that once the Court had issued notice to the informant and no steps were taken by the informant, the subsequent appearance of informant is nothing but a ‘set up’. It is further submitted that in fact there are no material against the petitioner. This Court does not appreciate the manner in which the Court has dealt with this file by leaving it unattended for five years. However, as far as the order of cognizance is concerned, the Court cannot interferer with the order, as the Court has taken cognizance on the basis of the material before it. Considering these aspects of the matter, this application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise issues regarding the merit of the case before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage of the case. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)