ORDER 1. On 6th March, 2018, this Court passed the following order: "Leave granted. None appears for respondents despite service except respondent No. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent No. 9-State. The appellant seeks to assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court, in terms whereof, the cognizance taken by the Court of S.D.J.M. Bhagalpur in respect of FIR No. 53/2012 , P.S. Pirpainti, Bhagalpur, Bihar under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, has been set aside qua the original petitioner Nos. 2 to 9. In pursuance of the notice issued, the State Government has also filed its counter affidavit and counsel for the respondent-State states that post investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and there is material against respondent Nos. 2 to 9 to proceed with the trial. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is devoid of any reason whatsoever. All that has been stated after recording the submission of the learned counsel for the parties is as under: "Having considered the facts of the case, I am of the view that whereas the present petitioners are concerned they are not required to be put on trial." We are of the view that in case the learned Judge was of the opinion that the proceedings qua original respondent Nos. 2 to 9 was required to be quashed, cogent reasons ought to have been recorded for the same. It could not have been dealt with in such a cavalier fashion and thus the impugned order is unsustainable. We are thus constrained to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the High court for consideration by appropriate Bench to be nominated by the Chief Justice. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs." The order be read as under: 2. Leave granted. 3. None appears for respondents despite service except respondent No.9. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent No. 9-State. 5. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs." The order be read as under: 2. Leave granted. 3. None appears for respondents despite service except respondent No.9. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent No. 9-State. 5. The appellant seeks to assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court, in terms whereof, the cognizance taken by the Court of S.D.J.M. Bhagalpur in respect of FIR No.53/2012, P.S. Pirpainti, Bhagalpur, Bihar under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, has been set aside qua the original petitioner Nos. 2 to 9. 6. In pursuance of the notice issued, the State Government has also filed its counter affidavit and counsel for the respondent-State states that post investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and there is material against respondent Nos. 1 to 8 to proceed with the trial. 7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is devoid of any reason whatsoever. All that has been stated after recording the submission of the learned counsel for the parties is as under: "Having considered the facts of the case, I am of the view that whereas the present petitioners are concerned they are not required to be put on trial." 8. We are of the view that in case the learned Judge was of the opinion that the proceedings qua original petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 was required to be quashed, cogent reasons ought to have been recorded for the same. It could not have been dealt with in such a cavalier fashion and thus the impugned order is unsustainable. 9. We are thus constrained to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the High court for consideration by appropriate Bench to be nominated by the Chief Justice. 10. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.