IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.9260 OF 2008 AJAY KUMAR SINGH @ AJAY SINGH, SON OF RAJENDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE OLIPUR, POLICE STATION PIPARIA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RANJU DEVI, WIFE OF KRISHNANDAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE OLIPUR, POLICE STATION PIPARIA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI ……………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. BIJOY KUMAR PANDEY, ADVOCATE MR. MUKESH KUMAR NO. 2, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. **************** 2 11/03/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance dated 05.05.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in G.R. Case No. 351 of 2002 by which the Court below has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 379 & 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the Police has submitted final form showing that the occurrence is true but has exonerated the petitioner on the ground that there is not enough evidence to show that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence. A protest petition is also pending, however the Court below has perused the case diary and finds that there is material in the case diary which shows that the 2 witnesses have stated that petitioner was present at the place of occurrence. The Court below has also observed that the Court is sceptical about the role of the Investigating Officer in this case. Considering all the facts and the order passed by the Court below, I find that there is no illegality and the Court below has applied its mind and given reasons for differing with the final form. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)