IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16284 of 1999 RAMJEE KAMAT S/O LATE SWAROOP KAMAT R/O VILLAGE-BELA GOTE, P.S.KISHANPUR, DISTT-SUPAUL…………………….PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMLA NATH JHA S/O LATE TARAHI JAH OF VILL-BELA GOTE. P.S.KISHANPUR, DISTT-SUPAUL………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Md. Iftekhar Mahmood, Adv. For the State:- Damodar Pd. Tiwary, APP ---------- 06. 22-Apr-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul dated 24.6.1996 whereby differing with the police report learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 364 and 302/34 of the IPC in Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 101/95, G.R. No.810/95 and issued process even against the petitioner who was not sent up for trial. 3. The petitioner has also challenged the revisional order whereby the revisional court has dismissed his Criminal Revision bearing no. 136 of 1996 and maintained the order of learned Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Section 209 Cr. P.C only when an accused in a case instituted on the police is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the court of sessions he can commit the case to the court of sessions for trial. The aforesaid provision under Section 209 Cr.P.C is not relevant for the purpose of this case because the matter under issue related to order of cognizance. The main issue is whether the Magistrate can differ with the opinion of the police and after having taken cognizance of an offence can issued process even against such accused or any person who has not been sent up by the police, on the basis of papers accompanying the police report. This issue has been settled long back by a series of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court and it has been held that the Magistrate has such powers and on the basis of materials available before him, he can differ with the opinion of the police for issuing process even against those who have not been sent up for trial. 4. On going through the facts and the aforesaid submission, this Court finds no merit in this quashing application. Hence, it is dismissed. 5. Since the matter has remained pending for long, the court below is directed to expedite the proceeding and all efforts shall be made to see that is concluded at the earliest in accordance with law. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)