IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14779 of 2008 1. Mahendra Yadav son of Kameshwar Yadav. 2. Maheshwar Yadav son of Late Mahavir Yadav. 3. Rajendra Yadav son of Yugeshwar Yadav. 4. Kamalesh Yadav son of Maheshwar Yadav. 5. Mohan Yadav son of Kameshwar yadav. 6. Yugeshwar Yadav son of Late Mahavir Yadav. 7. Pashuram Yadav son of Late Chanarik Yadav. 8. Ram Nandan Yadav son of Pashuram yadav. 9. Ram Pravesh Yadav son of Late Kush Yadav. All resident of Village-Khajuatia, P.S.-Shalaia, District-Aurangabad (Bihar). Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ram Khelawan Yadav son of Kishun Yadav, resident of Village- Khajuatia, P.S.-Shalaia, District-Aurangabad (Bihar). Opposite Parties. For the petitioners:- Mr. Anil Kr. Singh -6, Advocate. For the State:- Mr. Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 30.08.2011 Heard. This application, under Section 482 Cr. P.C., is directed against the order dated 12.12.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 637 of 2007/Trial No. 3286/2007 by the Court of Sri Rakesh Mishra, J.M. Ist Class, Aurangabad, summoning the accused petitioner under Section 204 Cr. P.C. filing prima facie case on inquiry under Sections 323, 504 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that prior to the complaint petition of O.P. No. 2 in which the petitioners have been summoned, petitioner no. 1 has filed Salaiya P.S. Case No. 21/07 registered under Sections 147, 323, 504, 342 and 379 of the Indian Penal code against O.P. No. 2 and others due to that reasons. O.P. No. 2 has filed 2 complaint case in which the petitioners have been summoned through the impugned order. The impugned order shows that on perusal of the complaint petition S.A of the complainant statements of three witnesses learned Chief Judicial Magistrate arrived at a conclusion that prima facie case under Sections147, 323, 504, 342 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and accordingly summoned the accused/petitioners under Section 204 Cr. P.C.. The Magistrate is not required to look into the defence as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Magistrate is only required to see whether on perusal of the complaint petition, statements of the witnesses whether prima facie case is made out. There is nothing in the impugned order for interference the inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners are at liberty to raise the defence at appropriate stage in trial. Kamlesh (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)