IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14394 of 2007 RAMAWTAR MAHTO @ RAMAWTAR VIDYARTHY SON OF LATE AMIR LAL MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHPUR BASAUNA, POLICE STATION BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIJAY KUMAR MAHTO SON OF RAM CHARITRA MAHTO 3. OM PRAKASH MAHTO 4. ABHAY PRAKASH MAHTO BOTH SONS OF LATE RAM SWAROOP MAHTO 5. RAJKUMAR MAHTO @ RAJU MAHTO SON OF OM PRAKASH MAHTO 6. MITHILESH KUMAR MAHTO SON OF RAMBAHADUR MAHTO 7. PHAGUNI MAHTO SON OF LATE PANCHO MAHTO 8. BALGOBIND MAHTO SON OF PHAGUNI MAHTO. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHPUR BASAUNA, P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT SAMASTIPUR. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 6. 5.10.2010. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Uma Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos.2 to 8. The petitioner, who was informant in Bibhutipur P.S. Case No.159 of 2004, is before this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to direct the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence even against opposite party nos.2 to 8, who were not forwarded by the police after completion of investigation. Opposite party nos.2 to 6 2 were named as accused in the F.I.R. for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of the petitioner wherein he had raised suspicion against opposite party nos.2 to 6. It was alleged that there was land dispute between the deceased and opposite party nos.2 to 6 and this was the reason for raising suspicion against opposite party nos.2 to 6. Accordingly, they were made F.I.R. named accused. However, after investigation, police submitted charge sheet against one Manoj Kumar, who was not named in the F.I.R. Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, has argued that even during investigation, name of opposite party nos.7 and 8 had transpired, but to the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer neither F.I.R. named accused persons nor opposite party nos.7 and 8 were forwarded by the police after completion of 3 investigation. However, only one accused Manoj Mahto was forwarded. It has been submitted that the learned Magistrate, despite the fact that there were materials on record, has not taken cognizance of the offence against opposite party nos.2 to 8. Shri Uma Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos.2 to 8, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It has been submitted that there were no cogent reason available on record for forwarding the opposite party nos.2 to 8 as accused and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the offence only against charge sheeted accused namely Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Mahto. I have also heard Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the impugned order as well as F.I.R. In the F.I.R., only suspicion was raised against the opposite party nos.2 to 6. The order 4 N.H./ impugned indicates that even before taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Magistrate had called for a report from the Investigating Officer and thereafter, being satisfied with the material available on record, has taken cognizance against only one accused, who was forwarded by the police in the charge sheet. I do not find any defect in the impugned order. However, it is left open to the concerned court that if during the evidence, such materials are brought on record disclosing involvement of opposite party nos.2 to 8, the learned court below will be at liberty to take appropriate decision. With above observation, the petition stands disposed of. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)