IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53400 of 2007 DIMPAL KUMARI D/O- BHIMSHANKER PRASAD, R/O- WARD NO. 13, P.S.- SUPAUL, DIST. SUPAUL. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PAWAN KUMAR AMBASTHA, S/O- PREM SHANKER PRASAD, R/O- WARD NO. 13, P.S.- SUPAUL, DIST. SUPAUL. ----------- 3 31.08.2010 Heard the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2007 passed on her Cr. Rev. application bearing no. 148 of 2006 whereby her application filed against the order dated 12.7.2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul has been rejected and the impugned order has been affirmed. Petitioner is named in the F.I.R. along with other accused persons. The Investigating Officer on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against some of them. The petitioner was, however, not sent up for trial. Learned Magistrate, on perusal of the case diary, came to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the petitioner as well. Accordingly, cognizance was taken. Said order was challenged by the petitioner in revision. Learned revisional court considered the submissions and perused the materials on record and came to the following conclusion: “Heard both sides argument. In the present case from the perusal of the impugned order dt. 12.07.2006, it appears that though the FIR was lodged u/s 147, 148, 379, 323, 324, 307 and 504 of the IPC and after investigation the I.O. has submitted charge-sheet u/s 147, 148, 323 and 504/34 of the IPC against two accused persons namely Bhimshanker Pd. and Sandipan Kumar @ Pintu Kumar but after perusing the materials of the 2 C.S., the learned CJM has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 323, 504, 452, 380 of the IPC against the revisionist Dimpal Kumari along with other two accused persons above named on the basis of materials available in para- 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the case diary. From perusal of the above para of the C.D. as well as from perusal of the records it appears that the statements of the witnesses taken by I.O. during investigation does not disclose the specific name of the revisionist but they have supported the incident of assault on O.P. no. 2 and besides that the FIR finds the name of this revisionist as an accused and in the statement O.P. no. 2 is the informant has supported the case and at the stage of cognizance the ld. Court below has only to see that whether there is sufficient material on the record or on the C.D. and from that a prima facie case is made out for taking cognizance of the offence or not. In the present case from perusal of the lower court records as well from the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the impugned order has been passed properly by the ld. Court of CJM, Supaul after considering the materials for taking cognizance of the offence against the revisionist and even stating almost the cause in the impugned order and it has been passed legally and properly and no interference is required to be done in that.” Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record including the two orders passed by the learned Courts below, this Court is satisfied that no case for interference in the orders under inherent jurisdiction of this Court is made out. Petitioner shall have adequate opportunity to raise/agitate these issues at the relevant stage of the proceeding. The application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )