IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4426 of 2008 SANJAR ALAM & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 02- 6.5.2008 Heard Ms. Soni Srivastava for the petitioners, and Dr. Maya Nand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for opposite party no.1. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) has been preferred by the five petitioners, namely, (1) Sanjar Alam, (2) Wasim Akhtar, (3) Noorul Matin, (4) Muzaffar, and (5) Shahid, and has been preferred with the prayer to quash the order of cognizance dated 29.7.2006, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (P) File, Kishanganj, whereby they are facing trial under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 384, 307, 379, 171(F) of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial no.1586 of 2006 arising out of Kochadhaman P.S. Case No.45 of 2006, 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present F.I.R. and cognizance of the alleged offences is prohibited in terms of Section 162 of the Code. She relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2001)6 2 S.C.C. 181 (T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & others). 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed this application. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Two F.I.Rs. at the instance of two different informants with respect to same occurrence have been lodged. The present one being Kochadhaman P.S. Case No.45 of 2006 (i.e. Sessions Trial No.1586 of 2006), and other one being Kochadhaman P.S. Case No.42 of 2006. The petitioners are accused in both the cases with respect to just the same offence. The present petitioners had filed an application under Section 227 of the Code before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for their discharge in the present case, which was rejected by order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure-4) with the following observations: “In the above described circumstances I am of the view that there is no need to pass any order at this very stage. Accordingly petition of the defence dated 31.7.2006 stands disposed off. However, the defence is at its liberty to prefer any petition for amalgamation of both the cases before appropriate forum if he chooses so.” (Emphasis added) 3 6. I am clearly of the view that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed a perfectly legal and valid order. The petitioner has already been given the liberty to file an application for amalgamation of both the cases before the appropriate forum, if so advised. Secondly, the cognizance with respect to just the same allegations in two different F.I.Rs. has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners. 7. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/