IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24952 of 2007 Sainik Yadav @ Sachchidanand Singh, Son of Ram Chandra Yadav, Resident of Village Keoti, P.S. Atari, District Gaya. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Bindeshwar Yadav, Son of Late Raghubir Yadav, Resident of Village Nasirbigha, P.S. Nimchak Bathani, District Gaya. --------- Opposite Parties ----------- 5 4.2.2010 Heard Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also counsel for the opposite party no.2. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order taking cognizance for offence under Section 302/120B/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 Arms Act does not suffer from any infirmity. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has tried to make out a case that the impugned order taking cognizance for offence u/s 302/120B/34 I.P.C. and Section 27 of Arms Act is not a speaking order. Such submission cannot be accepted by this Court because once the learned Magistrate has clearly referred in the order that he has perused the entire materials on record including F.I.R. and Charge sheet and has found a prima-facie case, his responsibility at the stage of taking 2 cognizance is over. Any further detailed discussion and consideration would be only made when the affected person including the petitioner would file an application seeking discharge. That stage, however, has not reached as yet. This Court therefore would find no error in the impugned order taking cognizance. At this stage, Mr. Singh seeks leave to withdraw this application with a liberty to move the court below at an appropriate stage. This application is accordingly permitted to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)