IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8951 of 2010 1. SUDHIR KUMAR MANDAL, son of Muni Lal Mandal 2. Manoj Kumar Mandal, son of Sudhir Kumar Mandal 3. Babloo @ Dhiraj Kumar, son of Sudhir Kumar Mandal 4. Gautam Kumar, son of Hari Lal Mandal All are resident of village Sahpur, P.S. Bhawanipur (Bihpur), District Bhagalpur Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 31.3.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The petitioners assailing the impugned order taking cognizance for offences u/s 341, 323, 387 and 34 IPC have their straightforward case that when the police after investigation had not found the case to be true, the order passed by the learned Magistrate differing with the police report and taking cognizance of the offence would not be sustainable, inasmuch as there were sufficient material in the case diary to show that no such occurrence had even taken place. In the opinion of this Court such approach of the learned counsel for the petitioners would definitely require review of the materials in the case diary. Counsel has fairly produced photo copy of the case diary wherein it is found that the informant 2 after lodging the F.I.R. in the further statement recorded in paragraph 5 has re- asserted about the occurrence leading to demand of rangdari of Rs. 50,000/- with a threat to him (informant) that in absence of non-payment of such amount the work being undertaken by the informant for completion of the scheme would not be allowed to be completed. The said statement in fact has been supported by one of the Mazdoor in paragraph 8 of the case diary who has stated before the police that the work was stopped on account of rangdari demanded by the petitioner Sudhir Kumar Mandal. Similarly in paragraph 7 in the statement of one Lakhan Lal Mandal before the police he too has supported the allegation in F.I.R. that there was an altercation on that day between the petitioner and the informant and that he came to know that such altercation was with regard to the scheme being executed by the informant. In that view of the matter, if the learned Magistrate on noticing these materials in the case diary and also recording these aspects in the impugned 3 order had gone to differ with the police report had passed the impugned order taking cognizance, this Court would not disturb the same specially when there is no error either on fact or in law. The reliance placed on the other portion of the case diary by the petitioner can at best be looked into at the stage the court below would be taking up the issue of framing of charge. At present this Court would not find any error in the order taking cognizance, inasmuch as it is well settled that a police report is not binding on the court and the court can always differ with the police report while taking cognizance. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/