IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2429 of 2010 1. Ram Pukar Sahni, son of Sri Mahabir Sahni. 2. Ravindar Sahni, Son of Sri Ram Pukar Sahni. 3. Ramakant Sahni, Son of Sri Mahabir Sahni. 4. Sobhit Sahni, Son of Sri Mahabir Sahni. All residents of Village- Bhatgama(Dalsinghsarai), P.S. Ghatho, District-Samastipur. 5. Asheshwar Mahto, Son of Horil Mahto, resident of Village- Musapur, P.S. Ghatho, District-Samastipur...................Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Jugeshwar Mahto, Son of Late Mangal Mahto, resident of Village- Khajutia, P.S. Ghatho, District- Samastipur..........Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 29.01.2010. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2009 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 62 of 2009 by the District & Sessions Judge, Samastipur, by which he has been pleased to set aside the order dated 09.02.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 286 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dalsingsarai, by which he was dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. and further for quashing of the order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur, in C.R. No. 286 of 2008 by which he found the case prima facie true under Sections 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners and has taken cognizance against them. The submission on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that final form was accepted by the court below. On the basis of the complaint-cum-protest petition, the court below found that there was sufficient material to proceed against these 2 petitioners. The complainant being aggrieved moved before the District & Sessions Judge, Samastipur, and came to a conclusion that the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dalsingsarai, is incorrect inasmuch there is material in the complaint petition and the statements recorded under Section 202 Cr. P. C. which made out a case against the petitioner and as such remanded the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dalsingsarai, to rehear the matter afresh. The Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dalsingsarai, has passed the impugned order after considering the complaint-cum-protest petition and statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case because their name has transpired on mere suspicion. Besides which, it is submitted that the statements made under Section 202 are not at all reliable. All these aspects can only be considered at the time of framing of charges. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere with the order of cognizance. This application is dismissed. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J)