These petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 4th January, 2007 made by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad by which he has summoned the petitioners in complaint case no.673 of 2006, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

2. At the outset, it is relevant to note that despite valid service of notice upon opposite party no.2 and despite repeated calls none has appeared on his behalf.

3. Heard Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Matloob Rub, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The complainant (opposite party no.2), Abdul Razak, has filed complaint case no.673 of 2006 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, Bihar on 4th September, 2005 in respect of an occurrence which is alleged to have taken place on 3rd September, 2006 at about 5 p.m. The petitioner, Bibi Husne Ara, wife of late Haroon Rashid is daughter-in-law of opposite party no.2. It has been alleged in the complaint that earlier the petitioner Bibi Husne Ara had admitted that the complainant (opposite party no.2) had never executed any gift deed in her favour. She had also promised that if any such deed in her favour would be in existence she would get the same cancelled. On the 3rd September, 2006 at about 5 p.m., the complainant made enquiry from the petitioner Bibi Husne Ara in presence of other petitioners as to why she did not stand to her promise and got the gift deed cancelled. The complainant also told that because of the gift deed in question unnecessary litigations were going on in the court. He asserted that he had not executed any gift deed in the name of his daughter-in-law and grandsons. Such utterances made by the complainant caused annoyance to the accused persons. They told the complainant that under no circumstance the gift deed would be cancelled.

5. The argument between the parties took an ugly turn when the petitioner Hifzur Rahman is alleged to have brought a Bhala (spear) from his house and the other accused persons are alleged to have assaulted the complainant and pushed him out of the house. The petitioner Hifzur Rahman is also alleged to have abused the complainant and pressed his neck. Lastly, it has been alleged that the petitioners have conspired together to grab the house constructed by the complainants younger son over an area of two decimals of land on plot no.784 appertaining to khata no.96. The complainant has alleged that he had never ever executed any deed of gift either in favour of his daughter-in-law Bibi Husne Ara or in favour of her sons and the so called deed of gift is a forged and fabricated document.

6. On presentation of the aforesaid written complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad took cognizance of the offence under section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). After taking cognizance of the offence on complaint, the complainant was examined on oath under section 200 of the Code. Before issuing process under section 202 of the Code, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate conducted an enquiry into the matter in order to ascertain the fact whether the complaint has any valid foundation calling for issue of process to the persons complained against or whether it is a baseless one on which no action need be taken. In the process, two witnesses, namely, Nesar Ahmad and Md. Aslam were examined on behalf of the complainant in course of enquiry under section 202 of the Code. After examining the complainant and the witnesses on oath, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad finding a prima facie case to be made out against the accused persons, namely, Bibi Husne Ara, Hifzur Rahman, Jehangir Alam, Firdaus Alam and Ashique Jamal for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 323, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code directed for issuance of process under section 204 of the Code a