IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.27704 of 2009 Pawan Mandal & Ors Versus State Of Bihar & Anr --------- For the petitioners : Mr Praful Chandra Jha, Advocate For the State : Mrs I.B. Pandey, APP ------- 4 09.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of admission. This petition under section 482 of the Cr. P.C has been filed against the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur by which he took cognizance for the offences under sections 447, 341, 323, 307/34 of the IPC against the petitioners and transferred the case to the court of Sri K. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur for commitment. On 14.3.2011, an interim petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners mentioning this fact that the petitioners had filed a discharge petition before the learned trial court but the aforesaid discharge petition was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 9.2.2011. It would appear from perusal of the record that initially, FIR was registered under sections 447, 341,323/34 of the Indian Penal Code but after due investigation, police submitted charge sheet for the offences under sections 447, 341,323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and on submission of the charge sheet, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate passed order impugned in the manner as stated above. It would further appear from interim petition dated 14.3.2011 that the case has already been committed to the court of Sessions 2 and the case of petitioners is pending for framing of the charge. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners had already raised almost all the points involved in this quashing application before the learned trial court but the aforesaid points were refused by the learned trial court and that is why petitioners have challenged order dated 9.2.2011 before this court by filing interim petition. In my view, the petitioners should file a separate petition under section 482 of the Cr. P.C if they want to challenge order dated 9.2.2011 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Jhanjharpur in Sessions Trial no. 53/2009. So far as the impugned order dated 18.11.2008 is concerned, I do not find any illegality or irregularity as well as any material which paves way for interference by this court in the order impugned. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, if the petitioners file petition under section 482 of the Cr. P.C against the order dated 9.2.2011, this order shall not prejudice the merit of the aforesaid petition. Shahid ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)