FEKU RAI SON OF LATE BHARAT RAI; TIRJUG RAI SON OF LATE BABU LAL RAI; BHORAN RAI @ BHURAN RAI @ BHULAN SON OF LATE BHARAT RAI; GABBAR RAI @ RANDHIR RAI @ GABBAR KUMAR SON OF BHURAN RAI @ BHORAN RAI @ BHULAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) The petitioners ,while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 29.6.2005 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Complaint Case No. 516(C) of 2004 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners while questioning the order of cognizance submits that the complaint petition has been filed maliciously and the complainant even suppressed the fact regarding lodging of the F.I.R. i.e. Sahpur (Danapur) P.S. Case No. 327 of 2004, which was registered against 500 unknown accused persons for killing the three deceased. Learned Counsel further submits that in the present complaint petition the allegation is that these four petitioners along with others have killed the three deceased, who have been shown as accused in Sahpur (Danapur) P.S. Case No. 327 of 2004. He further submits that although the occurrence took place on 5.7.2004, the complaint petition was filed after lapse of about seven days. Learned Counsel while referring Annexure-5 to the petition, which is photo copy of the F.I.R. of Danapur P.S. Case No. 167 of 2002 submits that the petitioners have been made accused maliciously in the present case due to reason that uncle of one of the petitioners had lodged an F.I.R. in 2002 against one of the deceased and other accused persons. On these grounds, learned Counsel for the petitioners has prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance.