IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40782 of 2007 KRISHNA MOHAN PRASAD @ KRISHNA MOHAN SAH SON OF BANWARILAL SAH, R/O MOHALLA- LAXMI CHOWK, P.S.- BRAHMAPURA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUSHILA DEVI WIFE OF GOPAL PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- DAMODARPUR PATHANTOLI, P.S.- KANTI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 5 26/03/2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved from the order dated 6th January, 2006 passed in Kanti P.S. Case No. 214 of 2000 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur whereby cognizance for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 323, 354, 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against him despite the fact that Chargesheet has been submitted under Sections 448, 341, 323, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the statement of the victim’s husband made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he has stated that his wife has illicit relationship with others. At the stage of taking cognizance the Court is not required to go into the defence of the accused. The accused may take his defence after appearance before the Court. The defence which has been taken by the accused at the stage of taking cognizance cannot be 2 justified. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the instant application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise his defence at the stage of framing of charge. avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)