IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13504 of 2008 BIBHUTI PRASAD YADAV @ BIBHUTI YADAV, SON OF LATE BIRANCHI YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR, LONGAIN, P.S. SHAHKUND, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SHYAM KUMAR YADAV, SON OF ARJUN PD. YADAV. 3. MANTU PRASAD YADAV, SON OF RAMESHWAR PD. YADAV. 4. PINKU YADAV ALIAS PINTU PRASAD YADAV, SON OF RAMESHWAR PD. YADAV. 5. ARJUN PRASAD YADAV, SON OF LATE BIRJU PRASAD YADAV. All Opposite Party no. 2 to 5 residents of Village Rampur Logain P.S. Shahkund, District- Bhagalpur. (Accused Persons) ----------- /2/ 30.11.2010 The petitioner being informant has challenged the order, taking cognizance dated 08.05.2007, whereby the cognizance has been taken under Sections 147, 148, 323, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that case was also instituted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the allegation is of causing injury on the vital part of the body, hence cognizance ought to have been taken under Section 307of the Indian Penal Code also. It is very fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Upadhayay that the petitioner’s prayer for alteration of the charge has also been rejected by the learned Court below. Since the trial has commenced. I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, under Section 323 of Cr.P.C, the hands of the learned Magistrate are not fettered in committing back the case to the Court of Sessions if evidences come to that effect. With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed off. Safik ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)