IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1419 of 2007 MUNESHWAR SAH, S/O- BHARAT SAH, R/O- VILLAGE- FORSAHI, P.O.- MAHMOODA, P.S.- ALAM NAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SANJAY PODDAR, S/O- SARADI PODDAR, R/O- VILAGE SARADI, P.O.- MAHMOODA, P.S.- ALAM NAGAR, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA. 3. PAWAN PODDAR, S/O- CHHATTHU PODDAR, VILLAGE AND P.O.- KARAUTI, P.S.- UDAKISHUNGANJ, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA. For the petitioner : Mr. B.N.P.Singh, Advocate. For the O.P. : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. M.K. Gautam, APP ----------- 3 20.08.2010 Petitioner is the informant (complainant). He is aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.2007 passed by learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in C.A. no. 4 of 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner criticizes the order impugned on the ground that at the stage of order taking cognizance, a meticulous evaluation of the witnesses examined during the inquiry is not permissible in law. The Court has to satisfy as to presence of sufficient evidence on record. It is contended that learned Magistrate, in the impugned order, has not only evaluated the evidence but has also considered whether the same is cogent enough to sustain conviction. Learned counsel submits that it is true that courts have held that issuing process is a serious exercise which affects the liberty of a person sought to be prosecuted but at the same time, it has to be borne in mind that a full dressed trial, at this stage, is not permissible in law. 2 Learned counsel submits that the consideration of the background of the case made by the learned Magistrate also vitiated the order impugned as there are two different and distinct procedures provided under the Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance. Here is a case where the Court was seized with the complaint and witnesses were examined in course of the inquiry. It is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses examined in this case consistently supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties highlights that prior to lodging of the present case, an information was made to the police which ignited investigation whereafter it was found the allegations were not substantiated and as such they were not sent up for trial. In that view of the matter, due to precaution, cognizance was taken by the court before passing the impugned order. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. On a perusal of the order impugned, this Court is satisfied that the learned Magistrate has exceeded its jurisdiction which he is supposed to exercise at the stage of taking cognizance. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order requires to be interfered with and set aside. I order accordingly. The application is allowed. 3 Order dated 8.8.2007 passed in C.A. no. 4 of 2004 is set aside. The matter goes on remand to the learned Magistrate for passing a fresh order in accordance with law uninfluenced by the present order. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )