IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11126 of 2007 VINAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4. 4.9.2008. Heard Mr. Sumant Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is directed against the order dated 20.1.2003 passed by Sri Rakesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muzaffarpur, in Complaint Case No.69 of 2003, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Section 409 and 420 I.P.C. According to the complainant he had sent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash to his brother at Bombay through the petitioner but the same was not received by his brother and , therefore, it was suspected that he had usurped all the money in causing gainful loss to the complainant and illegal gain for himself. It is by now well settled that in a case arising out of complaint the Magistrate while taking cognizance can look into only such matters which come in evidence in course of the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and he cannot travel beyond whatever has come in evidence. Gainful reference for this purpose may be made to the case of Chandra Deo Versus Prakash Chandra (AIR 1963 SC 1430) wherein their Lordships have observed that looking into any other matter beyond what has come on record in course of the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. would amount to the looking into extraneous matter which is neither warranted nor permissible. - 2 - In view of the categoric observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)