IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40639 of 2010 DASRATH CHOUDHARY & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2/ 12.1.2011 After having heard Smt. Rina Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and after having perused the impugned order, one illegality, which the court finds is that the court was passing yet another cognizance order summoning the petitioners by the impugned order dated 21.12.2009 in Sirdalla P.S. Case no. 28 of 2008. It is too well known to be pointed out that the court empowered to take cognizance, takes cognizance of offence or offences once and only once in a proceeding. In a case in which charge sheets in the main or supplementary form are received, then in that situation, the magistrate may apply his mind to the facts of the case placed before him through the police report submitted under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and passed an order of summoning under section 204 of the Cr.P.C. in spite of the order of cognizance having earlier been passed. That part of the order appears not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside. However, the order of summoning as regards the accused persons, i.e., the petitioners could not be allowed to be challenged on that account as illegal. The court does not find any illegality in it. It was also submitted by Smt. Sinha that the court was wrongly mentioning the provision of section 307 of the IPC for 2 which the petitioners had been summoned. There was no real basis pointed out to this court for upholding the above contention. Assuming that it might be true, there could be occasion and opportunity for the petitioners to agitate the issue at the time of hearing under sections 227/228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition, in the light of the above discussion, appears of no merit and the same is dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)