Nine petitioners challenged an order dated 20.06.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Siwan, which had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, and 354A of the IPC and issued processes against them based on a complaint filed by Bhuneshwar Dixit arising out of an alleged incident on 19.09.2013 involving a land dispute. The petitioners argued that the complaint was a counter-blast to their own earlier complaint case, that the same occurrence had already been the subject of an FIR (Nautan P.S. Case No. 142 of 2013), and that the Magistrate had taken cognizance in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. The Patna High Court found that no injury report or medical evidence was placed on record to support the assault allegations, and crucially, the complainant's own wife (the alleged victim of molestation) did not utter a word about any attempt to outrage her modesty in her sworn statement as an enquiry witness. The court further noted that the FIR lodged by the complainant for the same occurrence contained no allegation whatsoever of outraging the modesty of any woman, making it difficult to sustain cognizance under Section 354A IPC. On these findings, the court held that the order taking cognizance under Section 354A IPC against the accused persons could not be upheld.