IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22248 of 2009 ABHISHEK SINGH @ BITTU SINGH & ORS . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . For the Petitioners:- Mr. Chitranjan Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta (A.P.P.) ----------- 02 18.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of cognizance under Sections 307, 323, 325, 379, 342, 427, 147, 148 of the Penal Code and 25 (1- b)a/26, 27 of the Arms Act. That there may have been another F.I.R. filed by the petitioners against the present informant and which may have allegedly been earlier in point of time, but in which final report has been submitted leading to cognizance on a protest petition etc. shall not whittle down the legal requirement of this Court to prima facie examine, if on the present allegations a case fit to go to trial is made out or not. The allegations in the First Information Report satisfy the Court that they are fit to go to trial. The second submission as to under which provisions of the Arms Act the charge may or may not be made out is a matter to be more 2 appropriately examined by the Court framing the charge and not by this Court to interfere with at this stage, in view of the law as laid down in (2008) 14 SCC 13 (STATE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER VERSUS P.SURYAPRAKASAM ) at paragraph-5 as follows:- “5. Without meaning any disrespect to the High Court, we are constrained to say that the settled law is just the reverse of what the High Court has observed in the above-quoted passage as would be evident from even a cursory reading of Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C., which admittedly govern the case of the respondent. According to the above sections, at the time of framing of a charge what the trial court is required to, and can, consider are only the police report referred to under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the documents sent with it. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that. Of course, at that stage the accused may be examined but that is a prerogative of the court only. Though, in view of the clear language of the above sections, no authority need be cited for the above proposition still we may refer to the judgment of this Court in Minakshi Bala V. Sudhir Kumar (to which one of us was a party) for therein, the scope and ambit of the above sections came up for consideration and it was held: (SCC p. 144, para 6)” Needless to state that the petitioners cannot be precluded from raising all other 3 objections in accordance with law under the Code at appropriate stage. The application is dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)