IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.34814 of 2011 Rameshwar Nath Singh Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 3/ 07/12/2011 Supplementary affidavit on behalf of petitioner has been filed and taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional P.P. for the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 11.08.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua, Kamur in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 73/201, G.R. No. 1126/2011 whereby and whereunder petitioner including others have been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 188/506 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that summoning of petitioner by the learned lower court happens to be bad, illegal on account of the fact that the informant was not at all competent to launch prosecution for violation of the order promulgated by the SDM which is itself evident from the written report. Also submitted that neither any firing was made from his rifle nor the same was anyway connected with the allegation. Petitioner happens to be professor and was in a 2 way to gun-shop for getting his rifle repaired. In midst of way, he stayed at a tea stall where his rifle unfortunately, was seized. The learned APP fairly submitted that prosecution under Section 188 of the IPC cannot sustain because the prohibitory order was promulgated by the SDM and therefore it was SDM who was competent authority to launch prosecution in accordance with law under Section 195 of the Cr..P.C. However, so far summoning of petitioner under Section 506 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, that is permissible and the allegation on its face is justifiable. The requirement at the stage of summoning of accused in the background of taking of cognizance of an offence as prescribed under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. is limited to the extent of searching out a prima facie case on its face. Meticulous examination is unwarranted. The examination of materials and its scrutiny is not at all permissible at the present stage. Now, coming to the allegation, it is evident that there was promulgation of 144 Cr.P.C. by the SDM on account of oath ceremony of members of Panchayat Samiti as well as election of Pramukh and during said course, at about 3 1:30 P.M., Dhananjay Roy @ Sonu Rai has come, his supporters armed with licensee guns, rifles, etc surrounded and then made firing in the air. The police personnel chased and during said course two persons having rifle in their hand gone inside a tea stall, threw rifle and then disappeared. Both the rifles were accordingly seized in presence of seizure list witness. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet whereupon cognizance has been taken. For the present, I do not see any illegality in the order impugned save and except the cognizance to the extent of Section 188 of the IPC, barred. Consequent thereupon, order of cognizance dated 11.08.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua is modified to that extent. With the aforesaid modification, the petition is rejected. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi,J.)