IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.51669 of 2008 1. Nathan Yadav, son of Late Ayodhi Yadav, resident of Village-Jadia, P.S. Jadia, District-Supaul. 2. Manoj Kumar Sah, son of Late Gonar Sah, resident of Village-Jadia, P.S. Jadia, District-Supaul. ……………………………………………….Petitioners. Versus The State of Bihar……………………Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: M/s. Satish Chandra Jha and Kameshwar Pd. Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ------------------------------------- 2. 24.10.2011. Heard the parties. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.12.1988 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, in Jadia P.S. Case No.26 of 1988, taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against all the 11 F.I.R. named accused including the petitioners. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that from perusal of the F.I.R., no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners but the police on investigation submitted the chargesheet under the 2 aforesaid Sections including Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, took the cognizance of the offence against them in the aforesaid Sections through the impugned order dated 19.12.1988. From the impugned order dated 19.12.1988, it appears that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, after submission of the chargesheet by the police took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against all the 11 F.I.R. named accused including the petitioners on perusal of the case diary. The impugned order dated 19.12.1988 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, in Jadia P.S. Case No.26 of 1988, does not suffer from any illegality for interference with the same in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise the point, raised herein, at the appropriate stage during the course of the trial. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)