JUDGMENT : B.D. Singh & P.S. Sahay, JJ. This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as "the Code") was filed by Suresh Kumar Thakur and four others for quashing the ORDER :dated 26th November, 1973 passed by Sri K.K. Sharma, Magistrate 1st Class, Sadar, Muzaffarpur, taking cognizance against the petitioners. Their application came fop disposal before Hon'ble B.P. Sinha, J. who by his ORDER :dated 14-4-1976 was pleased to refer the case for decision by a Division Bench. This is how it came to us for disposal. 2. In ORDER :to appreciate the points involved in the application it will be necessary to state briefly some facts as mentioned by the petitioners in their application and the supplementary affidavit filed by them on 1-11-1976. There was a dispute for possession of some house property in Muzaffarpur town between Tej Narain Thakur, husband of opposite party and his brother Bishwanath Thakur on the one hand and petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on the other which led to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. Shri S.N. Jha, the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur by his JUDGMENT : and ORDER :dated the 12th March, 1973 was pleased to declare possession of the petitioners over the said house property and he was further pleased to restrain Tej Narain Thakur and his brother from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners. Since Tej Narain Thakur and his brother Bishwanath Thakur had taken forcible possession of the aforesaid house within two months of the initiation of the 145 proceeding, they were ORDER :ed to restore possession of the house to the petitioners. In spite of the said ORDER :Tej Narain Thakur and his brother did not comply with the ORDER :of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the petitioners filed a petition for restoration of the said house to the petitioners. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate ORDER :ed the Police for restoration of the possession of the said house to the petitioners. Thereafter, Bishwanath Thakur, the brother of Tej Narain Thakur got a criminal case instituted through Dropadi Devi, opposite party, against the petitioners. The opposite party instituted the said criminal case by lodging a complaint petition dated 3rd August, 1973. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate ORDER :ed the Police for restoration of the possession of the said house to the petitioners. Thereafter, Bishwanath Thakur, the brother of Tej Narain Thakur got a criminal case instituted through Dropadi Devi, opposite party, against the petitioners. The opposite party instituted the said criminal case by lodging a complaint petition dated 3rd August, 1973. It was alleged in the said complaint petition dated the 3rd August 1973 that she lived in the disputed house with her children in Mohalla Purani Bazar in the town of Muzaffarpur. It was further alleged that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had committed criminal trespass by capturing the said house and they wanted to drive out opposite party and her children from the said house by force. When it was resisted they assaulted opposite party as well as her son Indradeo Kumar with fists and slaps and lathi. Petitioner no. 1 also snatched a golden chain worth Rs. 200/- from her neck. When her complaint petition was placed before the Sub-divisional Magistrate Muzaffarpur he was pleased to refer the complaint petition for judicial enquiry under Section 202 of the Code to Sri H.N. Sinha, Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur. The enquiry officer however, found the allegations made out in the complaint petition as false and observed as follows: "From the facts of the case and evidence on the record the complainant had totally failed to make out a prima facie case against the accused persons. The case is fit to be dismissed." 3. On receipt of the enquiry report the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate did not accept the report and he was pleased to take cognizance against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 323 448 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as the Code) and transferred it to Shri S.K.P. Verma, Munsif Magistrate for disposal. 4. Mr. K.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has assailed the impugned ORDER :on two grounds, namely, (1) that Shri K.K. Sharma, the learned Magistrate himself was not legally entitled to issue summonses to petitioners 1 and 2 and (2) that on the facts and circumstances of the instant case Shri K.K. Sharma, the learned Magistrate has erred in the impugned ORDER :for taking cognizance against the petitioners 1 and 2 for the second time. The first cognizance against the petitioners 1 and 2 was already taken by the earlier Sub-divisional Magistrate by his ORDER :dated 3rd August, 1973. In our opinion, it will be convenient to deal with point no (1) first. In our view this point has no merit. It is fully convered by the decision in (1) Sudama Singh V. Kavindra Narain Singh (1973 P.L.J.R. 35). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, under point no. (2) is well founded. Reference may be made to the decision in (2) Jago Singh & others-v-The State of Bihar & others, (1973 BBCJ IV-445) where it was observed by one of us (B.D. Singh, J) that in a case where the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and the case was sent for enquiry and on receipt of the enquiry report, the cognizance was taken against the accused and transferred to another Magistrate, the second cognizance cannot be entertained. But it was made clear in that decision that the entire proceeding could not be quashed in view of the fact that the cognizance taken on the earlier complaint will be considered valid. In that case reliance was placed on (3) Jamuna Singh and others V. Bhadai Shah ( AIR 1964 S.C. 1541 ) where their Lordships of the Supreme Court in paragraph 13 at page 1545 observed, "Cognizance having already been taken by the Magistrate, before, he made the ORDER :there was no scope of cognizance being taken afresh of the same offence after the Police Officer's report was received." 5. We also heard Mr. Satyanand Kumar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party, who submitted that in the impugned ORDER :Mr. K.K. Sinha, the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance for the second time. Simply because the word “ la{kku ” (cognizance) is mentioned it could not be said that he has taken cognizance twice. According to Mr. Kumar the word “ la{kku ” was redundant and superfluous, and that should be ignored by this Court. In our opinion, the submission of Mr. Kumar is not acceptable, because the word “ la{kku ” clearly in the context shows that he had taken cognizance for the second time. It cannot be treated as superfluous. In that view of the matter only the second cognizance taken by the Magistrate is quashed. The entire proceeding cannot be quashed. In our opinion, the submission of Mr. Kumar is not acceptable, because the word “ la{kku ” clearly in the context shows that he had taken cognizance for the second time. It cannot be treated as superfluous. In that view of the matter only the second cognizance taken by the Magistrate is quashed. The entire proceeding cannot be quashed. In other words it is made clear that the first cognizance taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate by the ORDER :dated 3rd August, 1973 would stand and the Sub-divisional Magistrate is directed to proceed afresh on the basis of the first cognizance taken on 3rd August, 1973 and thereafter, the case will proceed in accordance with law. 6. In the result the application is allowed in, part with the above observations. Application allowed.