IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17643 of 2008 1. Upendra Yadav, son of Sri Krishna Yadav, 2. Yugeshwar Yadav, son of Late Budha Ram Yadav, 3. Girja Yadav, son of Late Raktu Yadav, 4. Vijay Yadav, 5. Ram Saran Yadav, 6. Bidyanand Yadav, all three sons of Late Mahichand Yadav, 7. Saryug Yadav @ Mukhali Yadav, 8. Vijay Yadav, son of Late Jalim Yadav, 9. Nawal Yadav, son of Budha Ram Yadav, 10. Suryamal Yadav, son of Late Babulal Yadav, 11. Bhuneshwar Yadav, son of Budhya Ram Yadav, all of village Chandchak, PS Masaurhi, district Patna – Petitioners. Vs. The State of Bihar. 2 12.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The facts of the case are that a case was instituted under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Penal Code and section 27, Arms Act along with section 3(2)-5 of the SC/ST Act. Cognizance was earlier taken in this case against some of the accused persons. However, the matter remained pending viz-a- viz the petitioners for investigation. After investigation the police submitted final form finding that the petitioners were not involved in the said occurrence. The Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi differed with the final form and took cognizance against the petitioners. While taking cognizance against the petitioners, the Magistrate relied on paragraphs 5, 7 and 8 of the case diary to substantiate the fact that the petitioners were in some way involved in the said occurrence. Learned counsel submits that paragraph 5 is re- statement of the informant. It is submitted that paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 2 of the case diary would not in fact reveal any material to show that petitioners were involved in the occurrence. In the facts and circumstances of this case this court deems it proper that the Judicial Magistrate should reconsider the statements made in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the case diary and if the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are correct, he will pass orders accordingly. It is submitted that the statement of the informant has to be supported by some materials in the case diary before the person(s) can be said to be involved in the occurrence. These aspects will be taking into account while reconsidering the matter. Accordingly, the order, dated 5.4.2008 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi in Masaurhi PS Case No. 60/2007 is hereby quashed. In the result, this application is allowed. Counsel for the petitioners may deposit the cost of Fax for communicating this order to the court concerned. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)