IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50181 of 2007 1.HARISHANKAR PRASAD S/O Sri Laxman Rai, Resident of Village Bhadahar, P.S. Chiraiya, District- East Champaran. 2.Ram Babu Prasad S/O Sri Laxman Rai Resident of Village Bhadahar, p.S. Chiraiya, District East Champaran. 3.Nawal Kishore Prasad S/O Sri laxman Rai Resident of villge Bhadahar, P.S. Chiraiya, District East Champaran. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Bir Bahadur Prasad S/O Late Jageshwar Rai, Resident of Village Mohadipur, P.S. Chiraiya, District East Champaran. ----------- 4 29/3/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. The order taking cognizance for the offence under sections 448, 353, 323, 384 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been sought to be assailed on the ground that petitioner no.1 being a Mukhiya had occasionally dealt with a public petition as contained in Annexure-2, wherein appointment of a teacher was made subject matter of enquiry before him alleging that the informant opposite party no.2 had been wrongly appointed as a teacher as also was marking attendance for such teacher who in fact had never worked in the school. In the opinion of this court, such defence of the petitioners could not have been looked into by the court below at the time of taking cognizance wherein its entire consideration is to be based on the basis of the materials on record of the case. Admittedly, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners 2 wherein the police had found the allegation to be true in respect of certain offences. The learned Magistrate having agreed to such portion of the charge sheet while taking cognizance of the offence has obviously not committed any error. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the police had not submitted charge sheet under section 384 of the I.P.C. but the learned Magistrate had proceeded to take cognizance even on that portion is only to be noted for its being rejected. It is always open for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance for the offence on the basis of the material on the records especially in view of the direct allegation the F.I.R. in which it was said that a sum of Rs.1000/- was snatched by the petitioner from the pocket of opposite party no.2. At the stage of taking cognizance no mini trial has not to be held and therefore this Court would not find any error in the impugned order taking cognizance. Consequently, this application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)