IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29767 of 2007 1. Sushil Chandra Roy, S/o Jagadish Roy. 2. Sanjay Kumar Yadav @ Sanjay Roy. 3. Ajay Kumar Roy @ Ajay Roy. All resident of Konaila Tole Mokdampur, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur. --------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Prabhu Roy, S/o Gango Roy, Resident of Konaila Tole Mokadampur, P.S. Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur, P.S. Dalsing Sarai, Dist. Samastipur. ------ Opposite Parties ----------- 4 18.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. In a complaint case which was sent for being instituted under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as a police case, if the police had ultimately submitted a final form, the learned Magistrate had power to differ with such final form and take cognizance. To that extent, the impugned order taking cognizance does not suffer from any infirmity, inasmuch as, the court below has also discussed the availability of such material in the case diary by citing the specific statements of the witnesses constituting the offence. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below had been preponed the date of hearing in the cognizance matter at the instance of the informant is 2 neither here nor there. The court below had also earlier issued an order for issuance of notice to the informant and if the informant thereafter had appeared even before receipt of such notice and had made a prayer for being heard in the cognizance matter by preponing the date, recalling the order to that extent would not in any way vitiate the impugned order specially when the court below has discussed the materials available on record for differing with the final form and taking cognizance. The next and in fact the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present case is a counter blast version of an earlier case filed by the father of the petitioner or that there is a land dispute between the parties are definitely one relating to defence version of the petitioner, which can be effectively gone into only at the time of trial of the case. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the order taking cognizance and consequently, this application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)