Judgment 1. The petitioners who alongwith three others have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 149(C) of 2005 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 30.8.2005 passed therein by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 341, 420, 467, 468 and 504 I.P.C. 2. As per the complaint petition filed by one Devendra Tanti, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, accused Suresh Tanti, had sold out the lands of the complainant to the petitioner no. 1 on 5.3.2005 through a registered sale deed and he had also sold half decimals of land from the share of the complainant by cheating and forgery. It is said that by sale of such land the passage of ingress and egress on the land of the complainant was blocked. It is also stated that the complainant had been restrained in the street by the petitioner no. 1 and accused Suresh Tanti and when he protested the accused persons started abusing and assaulting him. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that from a bare perusal of the complaint petition and the materials available on the record, it is clear that no case under any of the Sections is made out against the petitioner no. 2, Sharda Singh, as there is nothing specific against him. Similarly, so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, no offence under Sections 341, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. is made out against him and it was out and out a case of seeking revenge. 4. Although O.P. No. 2 was duly noticed and served with a summons from the court, he has not cared to appear and contest this application. 5. It appears from perusal of the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 30.8.2005 that he has taken cognizance against the accused persons as a prima facie case against them was made out. However, the said order does not disclose as to what were the materials on the record for him to arrive at a finding that a prima facie case had been made out. Merely stating that a prima facie case under such and such Sections is made out from the materials on record is not sufficient. Even otherwise, the prosecution story as has been made out in the complaint petition reeks of the same being highly objectionable and improbable. Merely stating that a prima facie case under such and such Sections is made out from the materials on record is not sufficient. Even otherwise, the prosecution story as has been made out in the complaint petition reeks of the same being highly objectionable and improbable. No prudent person in senses could have said that these offences were made out. 6. In my view, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is required to be quashed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, to look into the matters on record and arrive at a finding based thereupon. 7. Accordingly, this application succeeds and the case is remitted back to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, who will give a fresh decision after considering the materials on record in accordance with law. Since this is an old case and has been pending in the High Court for a long time, it would be expected that the learned Magistrate will take action forthwith and decide the matter, as stated above, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.