IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38011 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-442 Year-2013 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== 1. Bibi Sakina @ Sakina w/o Mansoor 2. Md. Ejaz @ Ejaz S/o Kalim 3. Md. Imran @ Ibran S/o Kalim 4. Prawez @ Prawez S/o Kalim 5. Azmer S/o Kalim All, resident of village- Madarganj, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Md. Nashim S/o Late Bashir R/o Madarganj, PS-Simraha, District-Araria ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 9 12-01-2026 I.A. No. 1 of 2025. This interlocutory application has been filed in this case for addition of prayer in the prayer portion of the main quashing. 2. For the reason mentioned in the interlocutory application, the same is allowed and the prayer made in paragraph 1 of the interlocutory application shall also be treated to be part of the main writ application. Re:- Cr. Misc. No. 38011 of 2015. 3. Heard the parties. 4. By way of this application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- a. This application has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38011 of 2015(9) dt.12-01-2026 2/2 15.11.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Forbisganj (Simraha) P.S. Case No. 442 of 2013 / corresponding to G.R. No. 2649 of 2013. b. For quashing the whole proceedings in connection with Forbesganj (Simraha) P.S. Case No. 442 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. which is pending before the learned ACJM-1, Araria. c. For quashing the charge-sheet No. 83 of 2014 dated 25.07.2014. 5. The additional prayer made by way of filing an interlocutory application in this case is because the trial has commenced and one witnesses has already been examined, as per the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 02. 6. In the opinion of this Court, the stage of the case has now changed as initially the petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance and now he is challenging the charge- sheet. 7. Since, the stage of the case has changed and the petitioners are facing trial, this Court finds no ground to allow the prayer of the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Vikas/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U