IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3407 of 2007 GAJENDRA SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6 10.7.2008 The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 27.3.2006 taking cognizance and the revisional order dated 11.5.2006 by which the order taking cognizance has been confirmed by the Revisional Court. The petitioners are named accused in the First Information Report lodged by one Ram Lovit Singh. . Charge sheet was submitted showing that the petitioners are not involved in the occurrence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur disagreeing with the findings of the Investigating Officer has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 304(B), 201/34 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The only point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the Court could not have taken cognizance once the Investigating Officer had come to the finding that the case against the petitioners is not true and had submitted a final form showing that petitioners not guilty in the instant case. For the purpose of aforesaid submission the petitioners have relied on a judgment in the case of Ranjit Singh Vs. The state of Punjab A.I.R. 1998 SC 3148. The facts of the case are quite different to the facts of the present case and the question involved and decided by the Supreme Court is also different to the question raised by the petitioners. The Supreme court has held that once cognizance has been taken of an offence then the Court cannot add a new person to array of accused at any stage before Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case as stated above the facts disclose that the petitioners were initially accused in the First Information Report and the Chief 2 Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali has the power under Section 190 while taking cognizance to differ from the report submitted by the Investigating Officer and take cognizance of the offence. Much emphasis has been placed on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Kishori Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3725. This decision has been distinguished by this court in the case of Ashok Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2006 (1) P.L.J.R. 204 by relying on the well settled law laid down on the subject in the cases reported in A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 885 and 2001 (4) P.L.J.R. S.C. 163. As such the case of Kishori Singh is not good law on the subject as it proposes to nullify the provisions of section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I, therefore, have no difficulty in holding that the Chief Judicial Magistrate could have differed with the conclusions of the Investigating Officer and taken cognizance against the accused persons. As such I find no merit in the submissions of learned counsel. In the facts aforesaid, I find that there is no merit in this case. This application is accordingly dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)