Taluka Rai And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34809 of 2014 Arising Out of PS. Case No. -56 Year- 2014 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Taluka Rai, S/o Late Ram Narayan Rai

2. Muni Rai, S/o Late Ram Narayan Rai

3. Shyam Bihari Rai, S/o Late Ram Narayan Rai

4. Dhanantar Rai, S/o Muni Rai

5. Kamta Rai, S/o Late Ram Narayan Rai All Resident of Village Bedadhi, P.O. & P.S. Dawath, District Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Raj Mangal Rai, S/o Late Ramji Rai, resident of Village Bedadhi, P.O. & P.S. Dawath, District Rohtas.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Ray, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Shahin Begum(App) For the Opp. Party no.2 : Mr. Ras Bihari Thakur, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 16-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and opposite party no.2.

The petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 06.05.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 56 of 2014 whereby the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas took cognizance under Sections 323 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

After the order dated 06.05.2014, more than three years have elapsed.

Counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34809 of 2014 (4) dt.16-08-2017 2/2 petitioners are buying time in this case and also in the court below on one or the other pretext.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are next door neighbour and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The issue with regard to the adequacy or in adequacy of material for taking cognizance cannot be looked into in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

If there is no evidence to proceed further, then it would be better for the petitioners to approach the court below by way of filing appropriate application stating therein that there is no evidence to proceed any further. If such petition is filed by the petitioners before the court below, it goes without saying that the court below will examine the materials available on record and if the court below finds that there is absolutely no material against the petitioners, then the court below will pass a reasoned and speaking order.

With the aforesaid observation, this application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Uday/- U T