IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8065 of 2008 1. GEETA DEVI W/O SRI DEBNARAYAN SAH @ DEBENDRA SAH 2. PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA SON OF LATE KULDIP GUPTA 3. SANJAY KUMAR @ SANJAY SAH SON OF SRI DEBNARAYAN SAH 4. DEBNARAYAN SAH SON OF LATE JAMUN SAH 5. RAMANAND SAH SON OF SRI DEBNARAYAN SAH 6. MUKESH KUMAR @ MUKESH SAH SON OF SRI DEBNARAYAN SAH ----PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SANJU DEVI W/O LATE GOPAL PANDIT --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioners : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 03 28.09.2010 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner no.1, namely, Geeta Devi is the elected Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Singhpur, petitioner no.2,namely Pankaj Kumar Gupta is her brother, Petitioner nos. 3,5,and 6, namely, Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Sah, Ramanand Sah and Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Sah respectively are the sons of petitioner no.1 and Petitioner no.4, namely, Debnarayan Sah is the husband of petitioner no.1. They are accuseds of a case lodged by opposite party no.2 under Sections 504,323,379 of the Penal Code. By the impugned order, learned Court below on a consideration of the materials brought on record in terms of enquiry made under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) has taken cognizance under those Sections having found that the materials brought on record indicate a prima facie case against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2 present allegation is manifestly attended with malice. It is contended that as per the complaint the occurrence had taken place on 03.11.2006. The complaint was lodged on 17.11.2006. Prior to that petitioner no.1, being the ‘mukhiya’ of the panchayat had received a complaint against the centre of which the complainant was functioning as ‘sahaiyka’ (Annexure-2). Petitioner no.1 made inspection in course whereof she was allegedly assaulted by the complainant which prompted her to lodge an F.I.R. (Annexure-3) under Sections 341,323,504 and 379 of the Penal Code. The said F.I.R. was investigated whereafter charge sheet was submitted on 10.01.2007 (Annexure-4). It is contended that the petitioner no.1 exercising powers conferred on her in terms of Section 165 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act 2006 suspended the complainant from her functioning as ‘sahaiyka’ (Annexure-5). It is thus contended that in view of these facts appearing from the record, this Court should interfere with the order taking cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, learned Magistrate has to confine to the materials on record only. As found in the impugned order the materials on record demonstrate a prima facie case as alleged in the complaint. At the stage of framing of charge, the petitioners shall have an opportunity to raise all these grievances and if possible bring on record those documents. Considering the scope of the jurisdiction exercised by learned Magistrate, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the present petition. However, petitioners are at liberty to raise these issues at the time of framing of charge which 3 shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)