JUDGMENT : S. S. Sandhawalia, C. J.-The Criminal Miscellaneous petition ;s directed against the threshold stage of taking cognizance of an offence under section 436/34 of the Indian penal code against the fourteen petitioners by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. It is wholly unnecessary to recount the facts in any great detail. Suffice it to mention that the proceeding originated from the lodging of a first information report by the opposite party way back on the 17th of March, 1979 at Singhara Police Station. After investigation a final report was submitted to the effect that the case was not in time and the said report was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial, Magistrate On the 9th of April, 1986. However, in the meantime, the opposite party had filed a protest cum complaint petition on the 13th of April, 1979 against all the petitioners. Therein the evidence of two witnesses, namely, Mahendra Ram and Harish Chandra yadav was duly recorded during the enquiry under section 202 of the code of Criminal procedure and on a consideration thereof the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under section 436 read with section 34 was made out against the petitioners and he consequently issued processes by the impugned ORDER :. 2. When the case came up for admission on the 7th of July, 1981, the learned single Judge referred it to a Division Bench because of some conflict of precedent within the court. It is, however, common ground now that the controversy stands set at rest by the recent Division Bench JUDGMENT : in Munilal Thakur and others v. Nawal Kishore Thakur and another ( 1984 PLJR 774 ). Therein it has been held in no uncertain terms as follows; "To conclude, the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the affirmative and it is held that a Magistrate, even after accepting the final report, can still take cognizance of the offence upon a complaint or a protest petition on same or similar. allegations of fact." In view of the above, Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad very fairly conceded that he could no longer urge this issue. However, he made a faintly tenous attempt to embroil us in the facts of the case and the merits of the controversy. allegations of fact." In view of the above, Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad very fairly conceded that he could no longer urge this issue. However, he made a faintly tenous attempt to embroil us in the facts of the case and the merits of the controversy. It was sought to be argued that on the evidence the case was not likely to succeed and the number of persons new implicated, namely, the fourteen petitioners was far too large. It is plain that at the stage when the Magistrate has taken cognizance on firmly finding that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused, there was no warrant for this court to enter the thicket of evidence and the factual merits of the case. The contention, therefore, must be rejected. Learned Counsel had then sought to argue that on the allegations in the complaint itself no case under section 436 I. P. C. was made out but at the highest it might disclose an offence under section 435 thereof. Obviously, these are matters to be considered at the stage of framing charge. He have no manner of doubt that the learned trial court would apply its mind to the issue when the occasion arises for determining whether an offence under section 435 alone is disclosed and thus triable by it or is one under section 436 for committal to the court of session. 3. With the aforesaid observation, the Criminal miscellaneous petition is here by dismissed.