IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.8433 OF 2008 1. ANWAR KUJRA, SON OF ABDUL SHAKOOR, RESIDENCE OF MOHALLA KHANQUAH CHOWK, POLICE STATION TOWN, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 2. MD. NASEEM, SON OF MD. TAIYAB, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA DILDARGANJ, POLICE STATION LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 3. MD. NASEER, SON OF ABDUL WAHEED 4. AMJAD REZA, SON OF MD. NASEER 5. ARSHAD REZA, SON OF MD. NASEER 3-5 ARE RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MAULAGANJ IMLI BAZAR, POLICE STATION LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 6. MD. HEERA, SON OF MD. MUSLIM ANSARI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA URDU BAZAR, POLICE STATION LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA …………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ZAFAR ALAM, SON OF MD. ISHA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MAULAGANG, IMALI BAZAR, POLICE STATION LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ………………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ******** FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. ANJANI KR. SINHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE O.P. :- MR. GYANENDRA KR. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MS. INDU BALA PANDEY, A.P.P. ********* 2 17/02/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the informant and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order taking cognizance dated 02.05.2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga is barred by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts are that the case was instituted on 13.12.1999 for offences under Sections 147, 341, 2 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. For some reason, the case remained pending. The Investigating Officer was transferred and as such an application was made for re-investigation of the case as no charge sheet etc. has been filed in the Courts. The application for re- investigation was allowed by order dated 03.02.2007 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. The order is quoted in the impugned order of the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga. It appears from the impugned order that perhaps the accused were not noticed in this case and the order was passed. Nevertheless, the fact remains that after reinvestigation, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners in the year 2007 and thereafter cognizance has been taken in this case. Therefore, the plea that the cognizance is barred by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not available to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 03.02.2007 is not in accordance with law as the petitioners were not heard in the matter, however order has not been challenged before any Court of Law as yet and as such, this Court cannot pass any order on the merits of the order of re-investigation of the case. For the present, I find no illegality in the order taking 3 cognizance. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)