IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.37154 OF 2008 1. MAHAKANT JHA, SON OF LATE MAHADEO JHA 2. BINAY KUMAR JHA, SON OF SRI MAHAKANT JHA 3. SANJAY KUMAR JHA @ AJAY, SON OF SHRI MAHAKANT JHA 4. NIRMALA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI MAHAKANT JHA ALL RESIDE3NT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RAJESHWARI, POLICE STATION CHHATAPUR (0.P. RAJESHWAR), DISTRICT SUPAUL VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR ******** 2 17/08/2009 The petitioners have filed this application challenging the order dated 28.05.2008 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa confirming the order dated 09.0-1.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Supaul by which cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 341, 504, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The main argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet under Sections 323, 341, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the order of cognizance includes Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. After considering the submission, there is no doubt about the fact that the Court could defer with the Investigating Officer and take cognizance if it finds that the contents of the case diary make out a case which includes other sections besides those referred to by the Investigating Officer. In this case, the order of cognizance 2 shows that there is an allegation that the son of the informant was assaulted on the head which has caused injury on his head purportedly inflicted by a sharp cutting weapon measuring 3” x 1” and as such the Court below was justified in including Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code while taking cognizance of the offence. I, therefore, find that the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the Revisional Courts do not suffer from any infirmity and as such this application is dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )