IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22174 of 2007 1. VIJAY SINGH 2. Bachu Singh 3. Pramod Singh 4. Chhoti Singh 5. Guddi Singh son of Vijay Singh, 6. Ramdeo Singh son of Bisho Singh, All residents of village- Makhdumpur, P. S. Fatehpur, District Gaya. … Petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rajendra Singh son of Late Maho Singh Resident of village- Makhdumpur, P. S. Fatehpur, District- Gaya. … Opposite parties. ----------- 7. 16.02.2010 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and also Mr. Onkar Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2. The impugned order taking cognizance for the offence under Section 323, 341, 384, 395 and 34 of the I.P.C. as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act has been assailed by the petitioners primarily on the ground that the same has been passed mechanically without appreciating the facts of the case. Mr. Verma in this context has submitted that in a situation like the present one where the learned magistrate had differed with the police report and had recorded certain reasons for taking cognizance, this court 2 is under obligation to test those reasons for deciding the correctness of the order taking cognizance. In this context, he refers to seven parameters fixed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, reported in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335. The materials on record however go to show that from the very inception the informant had a doubt about the partisan attitude of the police and as such a protest petition was filed by him even before submission of the final form expressing apprehension that his case will not be investigated properly by police. The informant’s version as stated in the complaint, which was later made the basis of the first information report under Section 156 (3) remains unrebutted that is why the learned magistrate has proceeded to hold that the informant had all along supported the allegation. In the opinion of this court, once this position has become clear that the informant had supported the allegation it would be rather premature on the part of the prosecution agency namely, the police to disbelieve the entire case on the basis of that two parties were on enemical terms. A criminal case at the inception can be 3 nipped in the bud only if on a bare reading of the complaint petition or the FIR no offence can be said to be made out or if the allegations on the face of it are so inherently improbable that no prudent person can be believe the same. In this case, unfortunately none of the aforesaid ingredients are fulfilled. The reasoning given by the learned magistrate in the impugned order also clearly reflect application of independent mind which is quite sufficient for the purpose of taking cognizance. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) is also misplaced as the impugned order taking cognizance differing with the police report has given cogent reasons. The veracity and correctness of such reasons cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That being so, this court would find no error in the impugned order and accordingly this application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)