IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54180 of 2007 1. Mahzid Mian, son of Dukha Mian 2. Meraj Mian, son of Shafuddin Mian 3. Osaid Mian, son of Shafuddin Mian 4. Hasim Mian, son of Adik Mian. 5. Anwar Mian, son of Sukhal Mian 6. Sobha Khatoon, daughter of Safuddin Mian 7. Sajadi @ Sahjadi Khatoon, daughter of Safuddin Mian. All resident of village-Madhubani Ghat, P.S.-Mufassil, District-East Champaran. …….Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Chhathu Pandit, son of late Aklu Pandit, resident of village-Madhubani Ghat, P.S.-Mufassil, District-East Champaran. ……..Opposite Parties. ----------- 05. 21.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and learned counsel for the State. The present application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 09.06.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 341, 323, 447, 504/34, 307 of the Indian Penal Code in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 57 of 2006. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that petitioners had no intention to kill anyone. During investigation the police did not find any case under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and the charge sheet has been submitted only under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code which are triable by Magistrate but by the impugned 2 order learned C.J.M. has also taken cognizance under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The other point which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the principle laid down in 2004(13) SCC 9(Dharam Pal And Others versus State of Haryana And Another), the learned C.J.M. has no power to take cognizance under offences triable by the Court of Sessions differing with the final form. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned C.J.M. has differed with the charge sheet and took cognizance also under Section 307 I.P.C. but no material has been referred by the learned C.J.M. suggesting charge under Section 307 I.P.C. But since the matter has been committed to the Court of Sessions, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. However petitioners are at liberty to raise all these issues at the time of framing of charge, if the charges have already not been framed and the learned Trial Court will consider all the facts including whether any case under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out or not and then pass appropriate order accordingly. The application stands dismissed. Shageer (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)