IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.3224 of 2008 1. RAM VILAS SINGH Son of Late Bhola Singh 2. Pintu Kumar @ Bhonthu @ Sushant Kumar, Son of Shri Ram Vilas Singh Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 14.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire prosecution including order dated 09.01.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in Sheikhpura Sheikhopur Sarai P.S. case no. 50 of 2007 dated 16.09.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even assuming the prosecution case to be true, no case under 27 Arms Act or Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out against the petitioners. The informant alleged that Pintu Kumar, petitioner no.-2, assaulted with knife on account of which he became grievously injured. The informant further alleged that Ram Vilas Singh, petitioner no.-1, took away Rs. 2400/- and a wrist watch. It is further alleged that two other persons opened fire. Learned counsel submits that charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 of the I.P.C. against these two petitioners only. However, learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act as well against these two petitioners only. Learned counsel submits that from the F.I.R. it would appear that there is no allegation of firing against these two petitioners. Furthermore, no cognizance has been taken against any other persons - 2 - apart from these two petitioners. In these circumstances, learned counsel submits that taking cognizance under Section 27 of the Arms Act is bad in law. This Court too finds that the allegation of firing was not against these two petitioners. Furthermore, only these two petitioners have been summoned to face trial. In the circumstances, the impugned order taking cognizance under Section 27 of the Arms Act is quashed. Learned counsel submits that no case under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. would be made out against petitioner no.1, as there is only allegation of commission of theft against him. He further submits that petitioner no.2 is alleged to have given only one blow on the informant, which is simple in nature. Counsel for the State submits that it appears in the case diary that a prima facie case under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court at this stage does not find any infirmity in the order taking cognizance under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. Furthermore, cognizance is taken for the offence and not of accused persons. In the circumstances, liberty is granted to the petitioners to raise all these points at the time of framing of charge. With the aforesaid liberty, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)