IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.51441 of 2008 Suresh Singh,Son of Raj Bahadur Singh, resident of village Khanpur Pakari, P.S- Bidupur, District- Vaishali. Versus State Of Bihar For the petitioner—Mr.Ajay Mr. Krishna Chandra For the State ---Mr. Jhakhandi Upadhaya 2 21.10.2011 This application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is directed against the order dated 13.8.08 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, rejecting the final form submitted against accused petitioner arriving at conclusion on perusal of case diary that there is sufficient material showing the involvement of the petitioner. Since the cognizance of offence was taken hence ordered to transfer the record to the court of Sri M.K.Dwivedi for compliance under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that initially the police submitted the charge sheet against other co-accused showing the investigation continue against the accused petitioner and later on submitted final form against the accused petitioner finding the case untrue but the learned C.J.M illegally summoned the accused petitioner. From perusal of the impugned order dated 11.3.08, it appears that on submitting the final form by way of supplementary charge sheet against the accused petitioner the learned C. J. M on considering the material of the case diary and supplementary case diary arrived at conclusion that there is sufficient material to show the involvement of the accused- 2 petitioner. Since cognizance of the offence was already taken under Section 147,148,149,307,342,379,600 and 413 of the Indian Penal code and 47 of the Arms Act and ¾ of the Explosive Substance Act, hence transfer the record to the court of Sri M.K.Dwivedi J.M.1st class, Hajipur for compliance of Section 209 of the code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate/ court under Section 190 Cr.P.C has ample power to differ with the final form submitted by the police and may took the cognizance on the basis of material available in the case diary to summon the accused. The learned C.J.M has discussed in detail in the impugned order about the material of case diary showing the involvement of accused petitioner. As such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, for interference in inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly this application is dismissed. Namita ( Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)