IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33617 of 2006 1. UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH son of Late Munshi Singh 2. Devnandan Pd.Singh @ Devan Pd.Singh, son of Late Ramashray Singh, Both resident of village:- Agrail, P.S.-Pateypur, District- Vaishali ….………. Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Binod Kumar Sah S/o- Late Laxman Sah, resident of village;- Champapur Agrail, P.S.-Baligawn, District- Vaishali ………………… Opposite parties ----------- 5 22.04.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 14.12.2005, passed by Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsinghsarai who has taken cognizance against the petitioners not only under Section 341, 323, 324/34 of the I.P.C. but even under Section 307 when no chargesheet for the said substantive offence was filed by the police nor has the learned Magistrate indicated the reasons or material for disagreeing with the chargesheet filed and the reasons for taking cognizance under Section 307 of the I.P.C.. The submission of learned counsel is 2 that in absence of such reasoning and material having been discussed and keeping the nature of the initial allegation itself the order taking cognizance under Section 307, seems to be misplaced. There is some force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioners but keeping the fact in mind that charge is still be framed this Court is inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioners to urge all such points and the materials at the time of framing of charge against the petitioners including the substantive offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. of which cognizance has been taken . The trial Court would be well advised not to be influenced by the non-interference by this Court in the quashing matter. Accordingly, this quashing application is disposed of with the above direction and liberty. Bibhash (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)