IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17705 of 2007 MUKESH PASWAN @ BALWANT KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4 6.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned APP for the State. The order dated 11.12.2003/20.2.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in G.R.No. 1527 of 2007 by virtue of which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under sections 341, 324 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. has now been challenged in the present application. A fardbeyan was given by one Chhotu Yadav to the ASI of Kotwali police station on 28.7.2001 that on the day of incident he was sitting at the place, the petitioner who is Bhagina of one Jitendra came with him and demanded Litti which the informant refused. On this order to shoot the informant was given by one Raju and the petitioner is supposed to have fired which hit the informant. The accused persons named in the FIR thereafter ran away and the victim was carried out to the hospital where his statement was recorded and the police case was registered. It is said in the petition that thereafter a petition was filed by the informant in the court below stating that there is some confusion with regard to the name of the person and he has not alleged anything against the present petitioner and he has been wrongly made an accused. The police seems to have thereafter filed a final form but learned Judicial Magistrate after going through the case diary and the - 2 - evidence which has come in the record decided to take cognizance against all the accused persons including against those persons who were let off by the police. The Court had been taken through the case diary and paragraphs which have been noticed by learned Judicial Magistrate in his impugned order dated 20.2.2004. There is categorical assertion and statement of the witnesses including the informant with regard to participation and involvement of the petitioner and if that was so the Magistrate has committed no wrong by taking cognizance against the petitioner by differing with the police report. In fact, the court taking into consideration the petition which came to be filed by the informant as well as the narration of the events opines that the petitioner seems to have put heavy pressure and it may be only because of fear or threat such a petition came to be filed by the informant. Since there are materials which stand corroborated by statements made in the case diary, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. This application has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Dismissal of this quashing application which is against the order of cognizance may not come in the way of the petitioner if he wants to urge the points available to him at the time of framing of the charge. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)