IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39148 of 2008 Ramdeo Prasad Singh, son of Sri Laxman Prasad Singh, village Patwara, PS Rajnagar, Dist. Madhubani – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Mahabir Safi, son of Late Ram Narayan Safi, village Patwara, Tola Kewalpatti, PS Rajnagar, Dist. Madhubani – Opp. Parties. 3 26.7.2011 HeardMr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.P.Singh, A.P.P. for the State and Mr.S.K.Jha for the informant. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 4.6.2008 passed in Rajnagar PS Case No. 32/2006 by the C.J.M, Madhubani by which cognizance has been taken on the ground that earlier cognizance had already been taken in this case vide order, dated 11.12.2007 against Brahmdeo Yadav, co- accused. The said cognizance was taken on the basis of the charge sheet submitted against Brahmdeo Yadav. In the charge sheet it has specifically been mentioned that the investigation against other co-accused is still to be completed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court in the case of Baliram Yadav vs. State of Bihar, 2004 (3) PLJR 697 has held that once charge sheet has been submitted in a case for the offences committed against an accused, cognizance cannot be taken. The facts of the case aforesaid were different from the facts of this case. After investigation charge sheet had been submitted and consequently cognizance was taken. Subsequent to that a second charge sheet was submitted wherein 2 Baliram Yadav was also sent up for trial. In those circumstances this court has held that a Magistrate could have only summoned Baliram Yadav under section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also pointed out that no fresh material was collected during the investigation and as such the submission of the charge sheet itself was not in accordance with law. In the present case it is pointed out that investigation against the petitioner was pending and after submission of the supplementary charge sheet cognizance has been taken. I, therefore, find that the case cited by counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the circumstances I do not find any illegality in the order taking cognizance. This application is dismissed. Let the case diary of the case be sent down to the court concerned expeditiously. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)