IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1327 of 2008 MEENA DEVI W/O- KHUSI LAL MEHTA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BASMATIA P.S.- BASMATIA (NARPATGANJ), DISTRICT- ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMESH MEHTA, S/O- GUNESHWAR MEHTA. 3. DEEP NARAYAN MEHTA, S/O- KHEM NARAYAN MEHTA. 4. SUDAMA PRASAD MEHTA, S/O- RAMJEE MEHTA. 5. KAILU MEHTA, S/O- LATE KMALUKI MEHTA. 6. SATYA NARAYAN MEHTA, S/O- RAMJEE MEHTA 7. RAJESH MEHTA S/O- KHEM NARAYAN MEHTA. 8. MUJAMIL ANSARI S/O- LATE ISLAM ANSARI ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASMATIA, P.S.- NARPATGANJ, (BASMATIA), DISTRICT- ARARIA. ----------- 2 16.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner, who is informant of Narpatganj P.S. case no. 203 of 2007, is aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Araria in G.R. case no. 1684 of 2007 whereby cognizance under diverse sections of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and the accused persons shown in the column of the charge-sheet have been summoned. It appears from the order that two of the accused persons named in the F.I.R. were not summoned. Submission of learned counsel is that there is/are evidence available in the police record which would justify taking cognizance under Section 379 IPC. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application in the shape of protest petition. On the date when the impugned order was passed, he was not present to press the application. In that situation, learned Magistrate perused the materials on record 2 and has come to the conclusion that the evidence on record justify taking cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 448/34 IPC. Two of them against whom the accusations were not found substantiated have not been summoned. This court does not find any illegality in the order. Petitioner shall have liberty to raise the said issue if the evidence during the trial justify her stand. The application is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )