IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33541 of 2007 SHYAM SUNDAR BAITHA, S/o Late Mishrilal Baitha, R/o Jamadar Tola, P.S. Bettiah Town, District – West Champaran … Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Lal Muni Devi, w/o Mohan Yadav, R/o village Jamadar Tola, P.S. Bettiah Town , District West Champran … Opp. Parties. ----------- 4 14.11.2008 Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, No. 1, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is against order dated 21.9.2006 passed in Bettiah (Town) P.S. Case No. 119 of 2006 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah, whereby he has taken cognizance under sections 341, 448, 323, 380, 504/34 I.P.C. It appears that the police after due investigation submitted a final form in favour of the petitioner finding him to be innocent but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate differing from the police report has taken cognizance. It is by now well settled that the Magistrate can differ from the final report and the point is no more res integra in view of the decisions in India Carat (P) Ltd. V. State of Karnataka, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 132 , wherein their Lordships have held that the Court is not bound by the findings of the Investigating Officer and can differ from him in the facts and circumstances of the case. This view - 2 - also finds favour in four earlier judgments of the Apex Court, namely, Raghubansh Dubey Vs. The State of Bihar (AIR 1967 SC 1167), Hareram Satpathy Vs.Tikaram Agrawal (AIR 1978 SC 1568), Joginder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1979 SC 339) and Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna (AIR 1976 SC 1947). That apart the learned Magistrate has assigned reasons for having differed from the police report and has categorically referred to paragraphs of the case diary, from which he has formed the opinion of a prima facie case having been made out against the petitioner. Be that as it may the submissions advanced of the learned counsel for the petitioner about the false implication of the petitioner due to previous enmity is his defence which cannot be looked into at this stage in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C.. While giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all these issues at the time of framing of charge this application appears to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)