IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32403 of 2006 DEONANDAN MAHTON @ DEONANDAN PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 12. 28.8.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Through this application, the petitioners seek the quashing of the order dated 12.6.2006 passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Begusarai, in Criminal Revision No.483 of 2005, whereby while dismissing the revision, he has upheld the order dated 10.11.2005 passed by Sri R.S. Pandey, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Begusarai, in Complaint Case No.1654C of 2005, whereunder he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 147, 341, 379 I.P.C. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they have been falsely implicated in this case by way of a counter blast to the earlier case filed by them, being Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No.39 of 2005 and Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 5 of 2006. It has further been submitted that there is litigation between the parties notwithstanding the fact that they are agnates by relationship. Be that as it may, the case out of which this application arises is a complaint case and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance after holding an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It is by now well settled by the Apex Court in the decision of Chandra Deo Vs. Parkash Chanbdra (AIR 1963 SC 1430) that in - 2 - an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not required to look into any other matter save and except what has come before him in course of the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. This is not the stage for the Magistrate to see whether the case will ultimately end in a conviction of the accused. What he is required to see is whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons. The satisfaction arrived at by the Magistrate cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of any other authority including this Court. That being the position, I find no apparent illegality or impropriety in the order impugned. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application which is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)