IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24899 of 2007 RAJIB SINGH @ KARU @ RAJIB KUMAR & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 7. 20.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party. The A.C.J.M. has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 376, 34, 341, 504, 323 and 347 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the accused persons. The only ground which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners accused is that the A.C.J.M. ought to take into consideration allegations made in the complaint petition and the statements made on behalf of the complainant and witnesses on S.A. for the purposes of taking cognizance. It is submitted that the A.C.J.M. could not have taken into account the reports of the Deputy Superintendent, Lakhisarai and the report of the Sub Inspector, Lakhisarai and the report which had been submitted in pursuance to a direction to the Chief Minister of the Bihar. I, accordingly, quashed the order dated 5.5.2007 and remand the matter back to the Court of A.C.J.M. Lakhisarai to consider whether any offence is made out on the basis of the complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses recorder thereafter in accordance with law. This application is thus allowed to the extent mentioned aforesaid. P. Kumar (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)