IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.38190 OF 2009 1. RAJO YADAV, SON OF LATE MUNAR YADAV 2. ASHA DEVI, WIFE OF BRIJ MOHAN YADAV 3. KAILASH YADAV, SON OF TANUK YADAV 4. TANUK YADAV @ TANUK LAL YADAV, SON OF ADHIK YADAV ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR, POLICE STATION SOUR BAZAR, DISTRICT SAHARSA 5. BRIJ MOHAN YADAV, SON OF KALAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUNMA, POLICE STATION BIHRA, DISTRICT SAHARSA …………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. GEETA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RABINDRA SUTIHAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR, POLICE STATION SOUR BAZAR, DISTRICT SAHARSA …………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** 2 10/11/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Opposite Party No. 2 and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners have filed this application for quashing the order dated 11.06.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 215C of 1999 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 343, 302, 328 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and issued process against the petitioners to face the trial. The only point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the procedure for enquiry under Section 202 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been followed by the Court below while taking cognizance. It has been submitted that it was incumbent 2 upon the Officer conducting enquiry to examine ALL the witnesses before taking cognizance of the offences. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Gobinda Ghosh & Others vs. Smt. Subala Ghosh, reported in 1979 Cri.L.J. 1005. This case relates to the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The Calcutta High Court found that the evidence of all the witnesses was in the same language and it appears that the Magistrate has made a deliberate attempt to record the evidence in a way that constitute an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The Calcutta High Court held that the act was arbitrary and could seriously prejudice the case of the accused persons. I find that the facts in the case of Gobinda Ghosh do not help the petitioners. In the facts aforesaid, I do not find any anomaly in the order taking cognizance. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)