IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15495 of 2008 MUNDRIKA SINGH son of late Shiwadhar Singh, resident of Village-Nauon, P.S.-Dinara, Dist.-Rohtas. …… ……..Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …… …..Opp. Party. ----------- 2. 24.6.2010. Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by Sub.Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Vikramganj in Dinara P.S. Case No.151 of 2003. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the petition, has argued that the petitioner is 74 years old and he was not named in the first information report. However, during investigation he was falsely implicated and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that on the date of occurrence he was not at the place of occurrence. He was at Varanasi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph-30 of the petition wherein opinion of the supervising authority has been incorporated and on the basis of the opinion of the supervising authority he has prayed that it is a fit case in which this court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for petitioner has prayed for 2 quashing of the order of cognizance. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submits that at this initial stage it would not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned order. It was submitted that it is true that the petitioner was not named in the first information report but during investigation his involvement has come on surface in the case and in the occurrence fire-arm was used. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the materials available on the record. I am of the opinion that at this initial stage, it would not be appropriate for this court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction which is to be exercised in exceptional cases. So far as submission of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding supervision note is concerned, I am of the view that supervision note has got no relevance for the purpose of taking cognizance. The learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the offences, has perused the case diary and other documents which were brought under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and only after being satisfied that prima facie case was made out has passed the impugned order. It is also appropriate to note that in this case order of cognizance was passed long back in the year 2006. I do not find any defect in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)