JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Although notice was issued but learned counsel for the complainant/ O. P. No.2 has not appeared. 2. Petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance dated 18-7-97/19-7-97 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Saran at Chapra has taken cognizance in Complaint case no.1077/1995 leading to Trial No.1452/1997 under sections 147, 148, 323, 325 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that prior to lodging of this complaint case, for the same occurrence the complainant had lodged a police case in which only three persons, namely, Ajit Singh, Pawan Singh and Pintoo Singh were named as accused in Dighwara PS case No.107/1995. Police submitted charge sheet in that case leading to trial of those accused persons but ultimately they were acquitted. The judgement of acquittal dated 11-10-1996 has been annexed as annexure-3. 4. It has further been submitted that only to put pressure upon the co-villagers not to support the case of other accused persons, after four days of lodging of the F. I. R the present complaint petition was filed naming altogether 31 persons as accused including those three who were named in the F. I. R. also. A copy of order of this court dated 29-6-1998 has been annexed as annexure-1 to show that order of cognizance in respect of those three accused persons, who were named in the F. I. R. , has been quashed by this court and by the same order the order of learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra in Cr. Rev. No.93/1996 passed on 16-10-1996 has also been quashed. That order by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra has been challenged by the petitioners because by that order learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order of learned Judicial Magistrate dated 16-4-1996 through which the learned Magistrate had considered the issue of cognizance and after discussing all the relevant materials including lack of medical report, delay etc. held that the complaint case was unreliable and refused to take cognizance. 5. held that the complaint case was unreliable and refused to take cognizance. 5. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that it was as a consequence of order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 16-10-1996 that the matter of cognizance had to be reconsidered by learned Judicial Magistrate leading to impugned order of cognizance dated 19-7-1997 which has been passed in a mechanical manner only with a view to comply with the direction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. Considering all the facts and circumstances, particularly, the order of this court whereby the impugned order of the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge dated 16-10-1996 has already been quashed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order of cognizance dated 19-7-1997 must also be quashed because it was only as a consequence of the order of learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge dated 16-10-1996 which has already been quashed by this court. As a result this application succeeds and the impugned order of cognizance is quashed.