IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14721 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-417 Year-2014 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1. Shobha Devi W/O Sri Ramavtar Rai R/O Vill.- Magardahi, P.S.- Town, Dist.- Samastipur. 2. Ramavtar Rai S/O Late Bachchan Rai R/O Vill.- Magardahi, P.S.- Town, Dist.- Samastipur. 3. Monalisha @ Babli D/O Ramavtar Rai R/O Vill.- Magardahi, P.S.- Town, Dist.- Samastipur. 4. Abhishek Kumar S/o Ramavtar Rai R/O Vill.- Magardahi, P.S.- Town, Dist.- Samastipur. 5. Anandi Ria S/O Kuldip Rai R/O Vill.- Baghi, P.S.- Samastipur (M), Dist.- Samastipur. 6. Anil Kumar S/O Sakkal Rai R/O Vill.- Baghi, P.S.- Samastipur (M), Dist.- Samastipur. 7. Umesh Rai @ Umesh Prasad Rai S/O Murli Rai R/O Vill.- Bishanpur, P.S.- Warisnagar, Dist.- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Yugeshwar Gope S/O Late Raghunath Gope R/O Mohalla- Azad Nagar Mohanpur (Near BRB College Samastipur), P.S.- Mufassil, Dist.- Samastipur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate Ms. Rani Shashi Bharti, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP For the O.P. No.2 : None. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of the order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Samastipur, in connection with Samastipur Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14721 of 2016(4) dt.13-02-2026 2/4 (M) P.S. Case No. 417 of 2014, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) has been taken and the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the said offences. 3. Mr. Bijay Bhusan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are the daughter, son-in-law and maternal grandchildren of O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that there is a dispute relating to passage between the said petitioners and O.P. No. 2, who are close relatives, in respect of which a preventive proceeding under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated, wherein Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 were witnesses. Petitioner No. 7 is a practising advocate and has been representing the petitioners since prior to the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that in the chargesheet, the name of another advocate, namely Anil Kumar, has been mentioned, whereas in the F.I.R., the informant has specifically named Umesh Rai, Advocate, as being involved in the commission of the alleged occurrence. The said aspect, however, was not appreciated by the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order taking cognizance of the alleged offences is in a typed Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14721 of 2016(4) dt.13-02-2026 3/4 format, in which only the word “cognizance” and the next date for appearance “30.10.2015” have been inserted in pen by the concerned Magistrate, while the remaining contents are typed. This, according to the learned counsel, reflects a mechanical and casual approach on the part of the Magistrate while taking cognizance, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2016 and thereafter, the matter has remained at the same stage as it was on the date when the impugned order was passed. 4. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2 while learned APP for the State is present. 5. After having heard both the sides, this Court finds that the order impugned is completely mechanical and shows casual approach of the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the alleged offences as there is no reference of any paragraph of the case diary containing the relevant material showing the commission of the alleged offences, hence, the order impugned dated 30.07.2015 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Samastipur in connection with Samastipur (M) P.S. Case No. 417/2014 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, so, it stands set aside/quashed and the instant petition stands allowed. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14721 of 2016(4) dt.13-02-2026 4/4 6. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh order on merits, without being prejudiced by this order, after taking into consideration the relevant materials available in the case diary on the point of cognizance. maynaz/- (Shailendra Singh, J) U T