IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15594 of 2008 1.FEKNI DEVI wife of Ramji Yadav 2.Shikan Yadav son of Sunder Yadav All are them are residents of village-Balia, P.S.-Puraini, Dist.- Madhepura ……. ……Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Phulki Devi wife of Soman Sarma Resident of village-Balia, P.S.-Puraini, Dist.-Madhepura …… …..Opp.Party. ----------- 2. 28.6.2010. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order which was passed long back on 17.9.2007 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 448, 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that even in the first information report there was no specific allegation against the petitioners but allegation was against one accused, namely, Ramji Yadav, of course, the petitioners were named in the first information report as accused. After investigation, the police did not find any material against these petitioners and, thereafter, the police submitted charge sheet against Ramji Yadav. However, the learned Magistrate differing with the police report has taken cognizance of the offences as aforesaid against all the F.I.R. named accused including both the petitioners. It was also argued that in the case diary there is nothing to suggest the commission of offence by 2 these petitioners. Mr. A.M.P.Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, opposing the prayer of the petitioners submits that it is not the stage to interfere with the order. He submits that even in the first information report there is specific allegation that these petitioners armed with Lathi had gone to the place of informant and in the occurrence there was allegation against co-accused Ramji Yadav in respect of assault. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also examined the impugned order as well as first information report and the charge sheet. The order of cognizance was passed long back on 17.9.2007. I do not find any material warranting this court to exercise inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and the petition stands rejected. It goes without saying that the petitioners are having liberty to raise all the points which have been raised in the present petition at an appropriate stage before the concerned court. If such a petition is filed, the court below without being prejudiced by this order will examine the same and pass order in accordance with law. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)