IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.30518 of 2008 1. Hari Narayan Jha. 2. Hriday Narayan Jha. Both (1) and (2) are sons of Late Baidyanath Jha. 3. Ratan Kumar Jha, son of Hari Narayan Jha. 4. Giridhar Narayan Jha, son of Late Satya Narayan Jha. All are resident of village-Khojpur, P.S. Babubarhi, District- Madhubani. ………………………………………………….Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Sutkun Ram, son of Batahu Ram, resident of village- Khojpur, P.S. Babubarhi, District-Madhubani. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: M/s. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate and Rana Ishwar Chandra Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P.No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate. -------------------------------------- 3. 6.9.2011. Heard. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is for quashing the order dated 3.6.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, in Babubarhi P.S. Case No.29 of 2007, G.R. No.633 of 2007, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, has taken the cognizance of the offence against the accused-petitioners under Sections 342, 323, 354 and 2 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3(X) of the SC/ST Act. The main submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that while the police submitted the final form but the Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence against the accused-petitioners ignoring the supervision note of the superior authority. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Chief Judicial Magistrate after submission of the final form went to the case diary and came to the conclusion that there is sufficient materials in paragraphs- 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary showing the prima facie case under Sections 342, 323, 354, 504 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3(X) of the SC/ST Act against the accused-petitioners and, accordingly, he took the cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections against the accused-petitioners. I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 3.6.2008 to show the abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the issues, 3 raised herein, at the appropriate stage during the course of the trial. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)