IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.971 of 2009 MAHESH YADAV @ MAHESH KUMAR, son of Late Barhan Prasad @ Barhan Yadav @ Nathun Yadav, resident of village- Gopi Bigha, police station, Magadh Medical College, District- Gaya. . . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadar, Gaya. 4. The Officer-in-charge of Civil Line Police Station, District- Gaya. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 3/ 25.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to investigate the Civil Line P.S. case no. 94 of 2009 properly and to arrest the accused persons thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though materials are available in the case diary, still final form has been submitted in favour of four named accused persons, on the basis of supervision note of Superintendent of Police, Gaya. He further submits that supervision note is not the basis for submission of final form. Counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit. In paragraph no.-5 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that final form has been submitted in favour of four named accused persons and the case has been found true against the unknown persons under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is well settled law that a Magistrate can differ with the police report, if he finds that the case diary contains prima facie materials to proceed with accused persons. The opinion of the supervision note would not be binding the Magistrate. 2 This application is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner may raise all the points before the learned Magistrate that there are sufficient materials for proceeding against the accused persons. It is further observed that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)