IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.3007 of 2010 ***** 1. Jitendra Yadav @ Jitendra Tagore son of Dinesh Yadav, resident of village- Moro Bigha, P.S. Atri, District-Gaya. 2. Ravindra Yadav, son of Saryu Yadav, resident of village-Daulatpur, P.S. Atri, District-Gaya. 3. Baleshwar Yadav, son of Late Dukhu Yadav, resident of village- Moro Bigha, P.S. Atri, District-Gaya. …. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Munna Kumar son of late Ram Jiwan Yadav, resident of village-Bhithra, P.S. Atri, District-Gaya. …. …. Opposite Parties ----------- 4. 30.4.2010. Though this matter was reserved for orders, as some doubts have cropped up, yet it has been listed again. The basic facts which are required to be stated that the petitioners were not arraigned as accused in the charge-sheet in Atri P.S. Case No.40/05. Some other accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned Magistrate took cognizance in respect of the said accused persons. Being dissatisfied the informant approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) forming the subject matter of Cr. Misc. - 2 - No. 29866 of 2007, wherein this Court remanded the matter. After the remand the Magistrate has taken cognizance in respect of the accused persons. Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance twice under Section 190 of the Code. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that this is not a case where two orders of cognizance have been passed. Though Mr. Singh has commended me to a number of decisions, yet they are not necessary to be referred to for the simon pure reason they relate to the issue that the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code and thereafter if any person has to be arrayed as an accused that can be done at the stage of recording of evidence under Section 319 of the Code. In the case at hand the order taking cognizance was quashed and the High Court directed the Magistrate to apply his mind. Thus, it cannot be said the Magistrate was devoid of jurisdiction to apply his mind afresh. Be it noted, the order passed by the High Court has gone unassailed. - 3 - Be it clarified, I have been apprised that the petitioners have preferred an application under Section 438 of the Code. The said application shall be dealt with on its own merits without being influenced by this order because this Court has not interfered with the order taking cognizance as only the question of jurisdiction was raised. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. Pawan/- (Dipak Misra, CJ)