IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.34395 of 2008 1. Saroj Singh, son of Late Kamleshwari Singh. 2. Shyam Kishore Singh, son of Late Ambika Singh. Both resident of village-Chintaman Chak, P.S. Mokama, District-Patna. ………………………………………………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Mahesh Bhagat, son of Kameshwar Bhagat, resident of village-Chintaman Chak, P.S. Mokama, District- Patna. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 3. 1.12.2011. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Rina Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to quash the order dated 25.3.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, Patna, in Mokama P.S. Case No.58 of 2005 (G.R. No.486 of 2005), taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners, differing with the final form submitted by the police against them. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 petitioners submits that from perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that the dispute is of civil nature and, accordingly, the police has submitted the final form against the accused- petitioners, but the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, Patna, differing with the final form submitted by the police against the accused-petitioners, illegally took the cognizance of the offence against them under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code though the impugned order, which amounts to abuse of the process of the court. From perusal of the impugned order dated 25.3.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, Patna, in Mokama P.S. Case No.58 of 2005 (G.R. No.486 of 2005), it appears that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, Patna, on going through the final form and the case diary, came at the conclusion that as per the statements of the witnesses in the case diary due to land dispute, the offence has been committed under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, took the cognizance of the offence against the accused-petitioners under the aforesaid Sections differing with the final form. 3 I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 25.3.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, Patna, in Mokama P.S. Case No.58 of 2005 (G.R. No.486 of 2005), amounting to abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the issues, raised herein, at the appropriate stage during the course of the trial in the court below. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)