IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18041 of 2007 PARMOD KUMAR GUPTA, S/o. Vishwanath Sah, R/o. Village- Nawada, P.S. Barauli, District- Gopalganj. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Dilip Kumar, S/o. Sita Ram Gupta, R/o. Village- Nawada, P.S. Barauli, District- Gopalganj. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S.P. Bihari, Advocate. Counsel for the O.Ps.: Mr. Naresh Prasad No.1, Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ----------- 10. 09.04.2010 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.7.2006 as passed by Sri Girish Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj in G.R. Case No.19 of 2005 (T.R. No.2094 of 2007), whereby cognizance of offence under Sections 323 & 379/34 of I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioner and others on the basis of the protest-cum-complaint filed by the O.P. No.2 Dilip Kumar and the statement of witnesses examined during inquiry. Referring to the antecedents of this case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the complaint filed by the O.P. No.2 under Complaint Case No. 2347 of 2004 had been sent to Barauli P.S. for institution of the case and accordingly F.I.R. No. 5 of 2005 for the offences 2 under Section 341, 323 & 379/34 of the I.P.C. was instituted at that P.S. Thereafter, the police conducted the investigation. On completion of investigation final form was submitted under Final Form No. 57 of 2005 dated 18.05.2005, whereunder the allegations were reported to be false and a recommendation was made for prosecuting the informant/O.P. No.2 under Sections 182/211 of I.P.C. It is further pointed out that before submission of the final form the O.P. No. 2 had filed a protest petition which was registered as complaint and after examining the complainant on S.A. witnesses were examined during inquiry and on consideration of the statement of the informant/O.P. No.2, cognizance of the offences was taken by the impugned order dated 04.07.2006. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the final form was also accepted and thereafter cognizance of offence was also taken on the basis of the protest-cum-complaint filed by the informant. It 3 was submitted that when final form was accepted how the protest-cum-complaint could proceed and cognizance be taken. But the submission does not appear to be acceptable. The learned C.J.M. is duty bound to pass any order in the final form submitted by the police and then he will proceed in the protest petition. It is entirely a different matter whether the learned C.J.M. chose to take cognizance under Section 182/211 I.P.C. as recommended by the police or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that any specific order in the matter of taking cognizance under Section 182/211 I.P.C. was passed by the learned C.J.M. In the circumstance, I find nothing on record to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)