IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28222 of 2009 1. Ganga Rai son of Late Sita Ram Rai. 2. Raj Kumar Rai @ Raj Kumar son of Ganga Rai. 3. Bhim Kumar @ Shatrughan Kumar @ Shatrughan Rai @ Bhim Rai. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2 15.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State on the point of admission. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the order dated 22.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Maner P.S. Case No. 113 of 2006 by which and whereunder he having found prima facie case under Sections 307, 324, 341, 448, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code took the cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that initially aforesaid Maner P.S. Case No. 113 of 2006 was registered under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code but after completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 341, 448, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code without any material and later on, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance for the above stated offences in mechanical way without applying his judicial mind. He further pointed out that injured of this case has received simple injury which is evident from Annexure-3 to this petition and 2 furthermore, the petitioner no.1 filed complaint case ( Annexure- 4) against the informant of Maner P.S. Case No. 113 of 2006 and others and now in the aforesaid complaint case, the Court, after due inquiry, has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He also drew my attention towards Annexure-5 series to show this fact that petitioner no.1- Ganga Rai and one Sonfulla Devi had sustained injury in the occurrence dated 16.06.2006. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the impugned order submitting that there is no illegality or irregularity into the impugned order and therefore, there is no scope for this Court to interfere into the above stated impugned order. In my view, this petition can be disposed off on admission stage itself. Maner P.S. Case No. 113 of 2006 was registered on the basis of Fardbeyan of Nilam Devi who stated in her Fardbeyan that on 16.06.2006 at about 8.00 A.M. while she was at her door, petitioner no.1 abused her on account of dispute of drainage. In the meantime, other petitioners also came there and chased her. She ran towards her house but petitioner no.3 gave one bhala blow causing injury on her chest and, thereafter, again petitioner no.2 gave one lathi blow as a result of which she sustained injury on her left elbow. Her husband came to her rescue but he was also assaulted by the petitioners. 3 The aforesaid Maner P.S. Case No. 113 of 2006 was investigated by the I.O. and after investigation police submitted charge sheet for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 341, 448, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code as state above. It would appear from perusal of the impugned order of learned court below that the learned court below passed the impugned order after perusing the materials available on case diary and, therefore, there is no scope for this Court to disturb the findings of learned court below at least at this stage by exercising the power vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid circumstance, this petition is dismissed on admission stage itself. However, petitioners may raise all the above stated points at the time of framing of charge, if they are so advised. It is made clear that if the aforesaid pleas are raised at the time of framing of charge, the learned court below shall consider the aforesaid pleas on its own merit without being prejudiced by the findings given in this order. Md. Ibrarul ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)