IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3574 of 2009 Md. Zahid Hussain, son of Md. Kamsud, resident of Village- Bhagwatipur, Police Station-Pandaul, District-Madhubani. ……..Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ……………………….Opposite Party. For the petitioner :- Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate. :- Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 29.11.2010. Heard. This criminal miscellaneous petition is directed against the order of taking cognizance dated 03. 06. 3008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, as well as against the order dated 11. 12. 2008, passed in Cr. Revision No. 425 of 2008 by Fast Track Court No. IV, Madhubani, refusing to interfere with the order of cognizance passed by the C.J.M. The allegation against the petitioner that he took Rs. 2,000/- from the informant, Jubaida Khatoon, on the pretext of providing Indira Awas Yogana, on which, Police after investigation submitted Final Form. However, learned Magistrate by its order dated 03.06.2008, took cognizance in pursuance of the statement recorded in the case diary in para nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Against such order of taking cognizance for offence under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision before the District Judge. However, the said Cr. Revision No. 2 425 of 2008 has been disposed of by Fast Track Court No. IV, Madhubani, vide order dated 11. 12. 2008 and criminal revision was dismissed in view of allegation regarding taking of the money for the particular purpose and cheating by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, contended that the case diary has been called for and in the case diary, there are material to suggest that the informant was not entitled for indira Awas Yogana as he was not in the category in the person who is beneficiary under the law for Indira Awas Yogana and further in the case diary does not substantiate that she was paid Rs. 2,000/-by taking money from some one. Learned counsel for the State however, opposed and submits that this criminal miscellaneous has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. after the petitioner having lost his battle in criminal revision before the F.T.C. IV and there is nothing on record to ascertain of any gross injustice or illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and further the Magistrate is quite empower to take cognizance even Final Form has been submitted then again court had discharged his duty can not be meticulously appreciate the finding and there are materials on case diary, but then court is not required to be interfered with the impugned order. However, petitioner may get 3 opportunity, if so advised, to raise issue at the stage of framing of the charge and hence, having regarding the facts and circumstances of the case, question for consideration whether impugned order is sustainable or not. However, this Court is of the view that petitioner has lost his criminal revision taking cognizance on 03. 06. 2008 and now instead of filing second revision he filed criminal miscellaneous. However, no irregularity or illegality has been made out in the case diary. However, from perusal of the case diary, there is several witnesses have been supported the prosecution case that Mukhiya took Rs. 2,000/- from Zubaida Khatoon for allotment of Indira Awas Yogana. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and hence, the criminal miscellaneous is dismissed. However, the petitioner may raise issue at the time of framing of the charge. However, if such petition is filed in the court below, then court below shall consider the matter without being prejudiced by the present order. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)