JUDGMENT 1. - The seven accused persons have filed this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sriganganagar, dated 10-6-62 by which cognizance for offence u/s 326, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 149 IPC have been taken against them. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this application are as under: Smt. Saraf Kaur w/o Makhan Singh filed a report at police station Raisinghnagar dated 8-12-77 stating therein that on that day at about 8.30 A.M. her husband had gone out of the house to answer the call of nature. After sometime, she heard the cries of her husband, whereupon and Darbara Singh went running towards the place froth where the cries were being heard and they saw that the accused Hansraj, Sahi Ram, Shankaran, Raja Ram and Mukh Ram's driver were beating Makhan Singh and Mukh Ram who was also standing nearby, was instigating them. It was further montioned that when she and Darbara Singh etc. reached the spot, the accused persons ran away. It was also stated in the FIR that Hans Raj and Sadhu Ram were armed with lathis, Shookaram and Raja Ram with Iron rods and that Mukh Ram had a gun. After the accused had thus gone away, Makhan Singh was brought home and later this information was lodged at the police station Raisinghnagar. After investigations, the police put up a challan for offences u/s 325 and 323/34 IPC only against Sadhu Ram and Hans Raj before the Munsif and Judl Magistrate, Raisinghnagar and the learned Magistrate by his order dated 31-3-78 framed a charge u/s 325 IPC against both these accused persons. It appears that Makhan Singh was not satisfied with the challan put up by the police and the action taken by the learned Magistrate and transfer application was moved, whereupon the case was transferred to the Court of Judi. Magistrate, Hanumangarh. This also did not satisfy him and he moved another application for transfer, whereupon the case was further transferred to Judi. Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh by the learned Judi. Magistrate while the case was thus pending before the learned Judl. Magistrate, Hanumangarh. This also did not satisfy him and he moved another application for transfer, whereupon the case was further transferred to Judi. Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh by the learned Judi. Magistrate while the case was thus pending before the learned Judl. Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh,Rakhan Singh filed the complaint about the same incident against the seven petitioners alleging that the police had joined hands with the accused persons and did not properly investigate the case and had wrongly filed a challan against only two of the accused persons and that too for the minor offence whereas as a matter of fact, the complainant had received grievous injuries with sharp edged weapons and not only two, all the seven accused persons were involved in the incident. He further mentioned that the learned Magistrate also did not properly examine the matter. On this, the learned Chief Judi. Magistrate proceeded to record the evidence of the complainant u/s 200 and 202 Cr P.C. and he also called the file from the Court of the Judl. Magistrate No. 2 in which proceedings were going on on the challan filed by the police. After examining the evidence of the complainant and his wife and also personally seeing the injuries on the person of Makhan Singh, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate took cognizance of the offences u/s 326, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 148 against Rajaram, for offences u/s 324, 326/149, 325/149, 323/149 & 148 IPC against Hana Raj, for offences u/s 325, 326/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 148 IPC against Sheokaran, for offences u/s 148, 325, 324/149, 326/149, 323/149 IPC against Sadhu Ram, for offences u/s 148, 326/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323 149 and 323 IPC against Mukh Ram, Sahi Ram, & Rati Ram. Aggrieved of this, the petitioners have come up before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned P.P. No one has appeared on behalf of the complainant Makhan Singh despite service. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a number of contentions before me urging that the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate was not at all justified in taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners on the complaint filed by Makhan Singh. He urged that when the matter was already pending before the Judl. Magistrate No. 2, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate was not at all justified in taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners on the complaint filed by Makhan Singh. He urged that when the matter was already pending before the Judl. Magistrate No. 2, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate should not have interfered with it on the complaint and should have sent the complaint to that court, that the complaint was belated,that no medical evidence supported the testimony of the complainant about the grievous injury with a sharp edged weapon etc. 5. In my opinion, I need not go into these contentions in any detail inasmuch the first contention raised by the learned counsel cannot be said to be altogether without substance, the fact remains that at present only cognizance has been taken against the accused persons on the basis of the complaint and the Chief Judi. Magistrate having the power to call for the case pending before the Magistrate subordinate to him, could not be said to have been acting without jurisdiction leaving apart the part of the propriety of the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate in proceeding with the case himself rather than sending the complaint to the Magistrate before whom the case instituted on the police report was already pending. So far as the other contention of the learned counsel go, I am of the opinion that the evidence need not be meticulously examined at its stage either by the trial court or by this Court. All that is required is that the Magistrate must be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further with the matter and the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate has after considering the evidence of the complainant and his wife and after seeing the injuries on the person of the complainant, has observed that he was satisfied that there was sufficient ground for proceeding further with the case and in these circumstances, as he was taking cognizance of the various offences referred to above, therefore he does not call for any interference at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioners would be free to raise these contentions when the matter comes up for the consideration of framing charges against the accused persons. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Chief Judi. Magistrate, at this stage. 6. The miscellaneous petition is, therefore, rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioners would be free to raise these contentions when the matter comes up for the consideration of framing charges against the accused persons. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Chief Judi. Magistrate, at this stage. 6. The miscellaneous petition is, therefore, rejected. However, it may be observed that the incident is alleged to be of 8-12-77, considerable time has lapsed thereafter and the matter has not proceeded substantially, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate will, therefore, expedite the trial and dispose of the case as early as possible and without any avoidable delay. The record of the case may immediately be sent back to the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate.Petition rejected. *******