IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.739 of 2005 1. RANJU DEVI 2. NANHI KUMARI @ NANHI DEVI @ TILOTMA 3. SUDHA DEVI ---- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MEERA DEVI --- OPP. PARTIES. For the petitioners : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 07. 11.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The present application was filed against the order dated 31.08.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no.4 Saharsa in Cr.Rev no. 175 of 2005, whereby the said application preferred by the complainant ( opposite party no.2) was allowed and the order passed by learned trial Court ( Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Saharsa) in complaint case no. 217( c) of 2005 was set aside and the matter was remanded back for passing fresh order in accordance with law. It is admitted position that during the pendency of the application the trial Court by order dated 1.3.2006 passed an order whereby cognizance was taken under diverse Sections of the Penal Code against all the accused persons named in the complaint (the petitioners herein). The said order has been brought on record by the petitioners by way of supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order submits that initially upon conclusion of enquiry made 2 under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure learned trial Court had not taken cognizance against the petitioners. It was found that the evidence against them was not inspiring confidence. It is next submitted that during the pendency of this application the main accused, namely, Kailash Singh against whom only cognizance was initially taken by the learned trial Court has died during the pendency of the application. The revisional Court by order impugned dated 31.08.2005 set aside the aforesaid order and directed for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It is the stand of the petitioners that the said order has prejudiced the mind of the trial Court whereafter the impugned order has been passed. It is next contended that the petitioners, who are lady members of the family, have been enmeshed in the present case based on a concocted allegations which was punctuated by the fact that one person namely Rohan Kumar had earlier filed a complaint case against the present complainant. It is next submitted that the allegations levelled in the complaint against the petitioners are vague inasmuch as the complainant have failed to bring on record documents of title/possession in respect of the articles which are said to have been looted away/removed from the house of the complainant. It is the stand of the petitioners that these allegations are ornamental and interluded to frame the petitioners. A perusal of the order dated 1.3.2006 would show that learned Magistrate upon remittance of the case to him by learned 3 revisional Court again considered the materials on record and found that there is prima facie case against the petitioners and as such cognizance has been taken by the order dated 1.3.2006 which is on record as annexure to the supplementary affidavit. It is settled beyond cavil that at the stage of taking cognizance the Court has to satisfy itself about presence of a prima facie case only. No detailed analysis of the evidence or the possible defence of the accused(s) is required to be made. Submission of the petitioners that present prosecution has been launched owning to animosity between the parties and that no documents relating to possession/title of the articles in respect of which allegation of theft has been levelled in the complaint shall be considered but at a later stage of the case if raised. Considering the scope of the jurisdiction exercised by learned Magistrate, this Court does not find any patent illegality therein. Application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)