IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.57071 of 2007 MD.ISLAM MIAN @ MD.ISLAM ANSARI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAKARI DAYAL, P.S.- PAKARI DAYAL, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. UPENDRA SINGH, S/O- SRI RANGI SINGH OF VILLAGE SAMARATPUR P.S.- MASHRAK DISTRICT- SARAN AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF PAKARIDAYAL, P.S.- PAKARIDAYAL, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI For the petitioner : Mr. Y.C. Verma, Advocate. For the O.P. no. 2 : Mr. Mrs Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, APP ----------- 3 13.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner assails the order taking cognizance dated 23.2.2006 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Motihari in Tr. No. 681 of 2007. Background facts giving rise to the present application may be indicated first. The informant (O.P. no. 2) lodged an F.I.R. on 14.7.2003 alleging therein that on the date of occurrence, accused persons made a forcible attempt to erect house on a disputed land. When protest was made, they resorted to firing although causing injury to none. The police investigated the case whereafter charge-sheet was submitted against the named accused only under Section 144 I.P.C.. Learned Magistrate agreeing with the report took cognizance under Section 144 IPC by order dated 15.4.2005 (Annexure-5). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the informant/complainant filed Cr. Revision no. 153 of 2005 before the learned Sessions Judge which was considered and disposed of by order dated 15.9.2005 (Annexure- 2 6). The matter was remitted back to the court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. Learned Magistrate, on consideration of the materials reflecting from the police report, has taken cognizance under Section 147, 148, 149, 447 and 307 of Indian Penal Code as also Section 27 of the Arms Act. While assailing the legality of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed only because there was some observation made by the revisional court while remitting the matter back to the said court for passing a fresh order. He, however, admits the jurisdiction of the Court in differing with the police report and taking cognizance under diverse sections of the Code for which the accused were not sent up. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant places on record the counter affidavit. It is submitted that in the light of the impugned order, the matter has been committed to the court of Sessions on 3.9.2009 whereafter charges have been framed by the learned trial court on 22.10.2009. The matter is now pending trial. It is also submitted that the accused (petitioners) had assailed the revisional order before this court in Cr. Misc. no. 26249 of 2006 which was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure-1). Considering the scope of the jurisdiction exercised by the learned Magistrate as also keeping in view the fact that trial has now progressed insomuch so charges have been framed and 3 evidence is to be led, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order. Petitioner shall have ample opportunity to adduce evidence and argue before the said court. The application is accordingly disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )