IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36066 of 2007 RAJANTI DEVI, WIFE OF SUDAMA SINGH, DAUGHTER OF SHANKAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SURWALA, POLICE STATION TARWARA, DISTRICT SIWAN. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUDAMA SINGH, SON OF RAJESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SURWALA, P.S. TARWARA, DISTRICT SIWAN. 3. RAJESHWAR SINGH, SON OF RAMDAT SINGH. 4. SARSWATI DEVI, WIFE OF RAJESHWAR SINGH. 5. BISWAKARMA SINGH, SON OF RAJESHWAR SINGH. 6. OM PRAKASH SINGH, SON OF RAJESHWAR SINGH. 7. BABITA DEVI, WIFE OF SUDAMA SINGH. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SURWALA, P.S. TARWARA, DISTRICT SIWAN. 8. ARJUN SINGH, SON OF CHANDRIKA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE UKHAI, POLICE STATION SIWAN, DISTRICT SIWAN. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioner : M/S Ram Chandra Singh, Adv. Jitendra Kumar Singh,Adv. For O.P. : Mr. Chandrakant, Adv. For the State : Mrs.Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ----------- 11. 2.11.2010. The sole petitioner, who was complainant before the court below, has approached this Court with a prayer to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gopalganj to take cognizance for the offence under Sections 406, 498A, 494/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has not been disputed that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, earlier complaint was filed by the sole petitioner against opposite party nos.3 to 8 for an allegation 2 of commission of offence under Sections 406, 379, 498A, 494/34 of the Indian Penal code. The only grievance, which has been raised by Shri Ram Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the fact that there were sufficient materials before the learned Magistrate, he had taken cognizance of offence only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been alleged that the learned Magistrate was required to take cognizance for other offences, which were alleged in the complaint petition. Shri Chandrakant, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of some of the opposite parties particularly husband of the petitioner-complainant. The court is of the opinion that the grievance, which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can well be raised at an appropriate stage particularly at the stage of charge. It is expected that at the stage of charge, the learned Magistrate will examine the materials available on record in detail and thereafter, he will pass appropriate order. With above observation, the court is 3 N.H./ of the opinion that it is not a fit case for interfering at this stage. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points at the stage of charge. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)