JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Md. Imtiaz Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance and issuance of summon dated 05.08.2016 in connection with Protest/Complaint Case No.794 of 2014 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 341 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh. 3. The Protest/Complaint Case No.794 of 2014 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No.211 of 2013 was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that an occurrence took place on 14.07.2013 at 09:00 a.m. The complainant had initially filed Complaint Case No.1258 of 2013 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh which was referred to Ramgarh Police Station Officer Incharge under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and thereafter Ramgarh P.S. Case No.211 of 2013 was registered by the Ramgarh Police and investigation was started by the Sub-Inspector and after investigation, final form was submitted by the police. Thereafter, the complainant filed Protest/Complaint Case No.794 of 2014. It was alleged that the complainant and accused no.1 Anarsi Rai are own brother and accused no.2 is nephew of the complainant and accused no.3 Dharmendra Kumar is grandson of complainant and accused no.4 is daughter-in-law of the complainant. The complainant and accused persons are living at one place and their house are adjacent. The complainant has constructed drain for discharge of water from his house and accused persons objected to it in respect of discharge of water from drain. Thereafter, the accused person came out armed with lathi, rod and rifle. The accused no.2 started fire upon complainant, but it did not hit the complainant and the witnesses also arrived at the place of occurrence. The accused no.3 assaulted the complainant and his son Manoj Kumar with lathi as a result whereof he sustained severe injury. It was further alleged that the complainant's wife Phuljhari Devi went there for rescue but she was also assaulted by accused no.4 and alleged that she is Dian and is involved in witch crafting and used filthy languages and accused no.3 snatched away one gold chain from her which was approx valued of Rs.30,000/-. It was further alleged that the complainant's wife Phuljhari Devi went there for rescue but she was also assaulted by accused no.4 and alleged that she is Dian and is involved in witch crafting and used filthy languages and accused no.3 snatched away one gold chain from her which was approx valued of Rs.30,000/-. Prior to this incident, one Panchayati was also held but it was rejected by the accused persons and therefore, the accused persons have committed offence and prayed for taking appropriate action against them. 4. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint case was earlier sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and pursuant to that the police has investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet stating therein that there is no evidence against the petitioners and that is why they have not been sent up for trial. The opposite party no.2 has filed Protest/Complaint Case No.794 of 2014 and on that petition, the learned court has taken cognizance under Sections 341 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. He further submits that for the same cause of action, another case under Section 107 Cr.P.C. is going on between the parties. The petitioner no.1 is employed as A.S.I./G.D. at B.S.F. Meru Camp, Hazaribagh. The petitioner no.1 i.e. accused no.2 has no son named as Dhramendra Kumar and he has only one son namely Satyendra Kumar, who is student of Delhi Technological University since 2013 and he is a physically handicapped person unable to move without help of anyone. The petitioner no.2 is suffering from muscular dystrophy and is physically disabled. He further submits that the certificate to that effect is annexed at Annexure-3 Series of the petition. He also submits that one of the certificate has been issued by the AIIMS. He further submits that supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 wherein it has been disclosed that another case has been filed against the petitioners, which is pending. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Md. Imtiaz Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the person who is stationed at Hazaribagh used to come to the place of occurrence and after using his muscles to give threatening to opposite party no.2 and his family members, went back to the place of posting. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Md. Imtiaz Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the person who is stationed at Hazaribagh used to come to the place of occurrence and after using his muscles to give threatening to opposite party no.2 and his family members, went back to the place of posting. He further submits that the learned court has taken cognizance after applying its mind. He also submits that another case has been filed against the petitioners in which cognizance has been taken against the father of petitioner no.1 namely Anarsi Rai. 6. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the cognizance order and the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance. 7. This Court has perused the documents available on record and finds that the final form has been submitted by the police whereby the petitioners have not been sent up for trial. Looking to the complaint, it transpires that the petitioners and opposite party no.2 are relatives and drainage dispute has been occurred between the parties and for that case under Section 107 Cr.P.C. is already going on, as submitted by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned court has not taken cognizance under Sections 307, 325, 379 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, which suggest that the allegations made in the protest are false and that is why the cognizance under those sections has not been taken. Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code speaks about punishment for theft, Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code speaks about attempt to murder. Thus, it is apparent that the contents of the protest petition are not correct and that is why the learned court has not taken cognizance under those sections. The learned court has taken cognizance under Section 341 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code speaks about punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code speaks about voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. For applicability of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the materials relied by the prosecution must show that the accused persons had caused the acts complained of at least with the knowledge that it was likely to cause hurt to the victim. For applicability of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the materials relied by the prosecution must show that the accused persons had caused the acts complained of at least with the knowledge that it was likely to cause hurt to the victim. What is the nature of the cause hurt by dangerous weapon to apply Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is not disclosed. Accordingly, the ingredients under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code speaks about punishment for wrongful restraint. Looking into the complaint, what is the restrain made by the petitioners has not been disclosed. Thus, the ingredient of Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. The document on the record suggests that Satyendra Kumar is handicapped and he is the student of Delhi Technological University since 2013. The police has already investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet and the petitioners have not been sent up for trial. The learned court has taken cognizance and reasons of differing with the police report has not been disclosed in the cognizance order. It has been submitted that another case has been filed against the petitioners wherein cognizance has been taken against the father of petitioner no.1. It appears that for settling the grievance, one case to another case has been filed by opposite party no.2 against the petitioners. Admittedly, they are close relatives. The cases are being filed maliciously against the petitioners. 8. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance and issuance of summon dated 05.08.2016 in connection with Protest/Complaint Case No.794 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh is, hereby, quashed. 9. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. 10. Interim order dated 11.10.2017 stands vacated.