IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10530 of 2008 Ashok Kumar Singh, Son of Jamuna Singh, resident of Village-Itwa Nonia, Bigha, P.S. Nabinagar, District-Aurangabad -- Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 22-06-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Nabinagar P.S. Case No.109 of 2006. By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 147,148,149,323,307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act differing with the police report submitted after completion of the investigation. In this case, the petitioner along with others were named as accused .It was alleged that the petitioner along with others participated in the occurrence, in which one of the accused used fire- arm and the informant had received injury. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet against three accused persons. However, the petitioner and others were not sent up for trial .After submission of the chargesheet , the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate differing with the recommendation of the police has taken cognizance of offences against this petitioner also. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, submits that even though in the case diary no material 2 was available against the petitioner and the police had not found any cogent material to proceed against the petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by committing an error of record, has passed the impugned order and accordingly, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of cognizance in respect of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. After hearing the parties and examining the records, particularly the F.I.R., it appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioner regarding participation in the occurrence, in which fire- arm was used and the informant had received injury also. The F.I.R. was lodged for the offences under Sections 147,148,149,323,307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Magistrate is not bound to accept the recommendation of the police and is fully competent to differ with the opinion of the police and after examining the materials he can proceed against the accused, even though he was not chargesheeted by the police. So far the allegation against the petitioner is concerned, in the F.I.R. there ia specific material to show the involvement of the petitioner. Moreover, time without number, it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that at the initial stage, this Court should refrain to interfere with criminal proceeding. The Code of Criminal Procedure is self-contained code and there is provision to raise grievance at appropriate stages. Accordingly, I am of the view that the present case is not 3 in the category of exceptional or rarest of the rare cases warranting exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the petition stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J )