IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.9785 of 2008 1. RAM ANUGRAH PRASAD SINGH @ ANUGRAH SINGH, SON OF LATE RASO SINGH. 2. MUNNA KUMAR @ MUNNA SINGH, SON OF GUJJU SINGH. 3. RANJEET KUAMR @ RANJEET KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAMDEO SINGH. 4. KARU SINGH, SON OF RAMAWATAR SINGH @ RAMAWATAR. 5. PRASIDH SINGH, SON OF SRI RAM SINGH. 6. AMIT KUMAR, SON OF SATYENDRA PRASAD SINGH. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – RUDASI, POLICE STATION – SHEIKHPURA, DISTRICT – SHEIKHPURA. …………….. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. PRABHAT SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMAWATAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SULTANPUR, POLICE STATION – SHEIKHPURA, DISTRICT – SHEIKHPURA, PRESENTLY MUKHIYA GAGRI PANCHAYAT, POLICE STATION – SHEIKHPURA, DISTRICT – SHEIKHPURA. ……………. OPP. PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, Advocate. Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, A.P.P. 02/ 05.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. This petition is directed against the order dated 19.09.2007 passed in G.R. No. 289 of 2007 arising out of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 109 of 2007 by which the learned ACJM, Sheikhpura has taken cognizance under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 386, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution as alleged in the ferdbeyan by the 2 informant is that while a meeting was being convened at the Primary School of Rudasi village, some criminal elements as Prasidh Singh, Amit Kumar, Ranjeet Kumar, Anugrah Singh, Munna Singh and Karu Singh reached there, snatched the golden chain worth Rs.500/- and demanded Rs.20,000/- and even fired from the double barrel gun and snatched the register and torn the same. On the ferdbeyan the FIR was lodged and after submission of the charge-sheet, the cognizance was taken. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that according to the supervision note of the Supervisor, SDPO during the meeting there was some hot exchange between the rival party calling verbal and physical altercation and party being politically motivated, the charge sheet has been submitted and the charge sheet mentions about the direction of the Superintendent of Police for filing the charge sheet. However, at the stage of taking cognizance the Magistrate has only to apply its mind to the facts whether a prima facie case is made out. The impugned order specifically expresses that he perused the records, the case diary and was satisfied that the offence is made out. However, the impugned order 3 itself mentions that he perused the records and perusal means the active consideration of the facts and hence, from the orders itself it is apparent that he applied his mind to the facts for taking cognizance against the accused persons in paragraph 11 in the charge sheet, hence I do not find any merit in this petition. However, the petitioner may raise the point at the stage of framing of the charge, if so advised. This petition is disposed of. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)