IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34483 of 2008 1. Bittan @ Bindeshwari Paswan. 2. Lakha Paswan. 3. Sudhir Paswan. All are sons of Bhajju paswan. All are resident of Chaman Garh, P.s. Naya ram Nagar, Dist- Munger Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Urmila Devi, wife of Braham Deon Mandal. Resident of Ramdhan tola, Kala Rampur chaman Garh. .s. Naya ram nagar, Dist-Munger. ----------- 11.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed challenging the order dated 11.10.2007 and 24.04.2007. On 30.03.2004 the petitioner had moved the Court against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. The Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that there is no material for the trial to proceed against this petitioner under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. It is specifically mentioned that the statements made in the complaint-cum-protest petition could not have been taken into account by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, while taking cognizance and as such the order of cognizance against the petitioner was quashed and the matter was remanded back with the direction to consider the investigation in the case diary only. Consequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had come to the conclusion on the basis of the case diary that a no prima facie case, is made out against the petitioner, on the basis of the statement recorded in the case diary, he has summoned the 2 petitioners to face trial. Once the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate comes to the conclusion on perusal of the case diary, which supports the participation of the petitioner in the said occurrence, this Court cannot conclude that the order of cognizance is illegal. I accordingly, find no illegality in the order impugned. This application stands dismissed. Prakash (Smt. Sheema Ali Khan, J.)