JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J. - This application is directed against an order dated 19.4.1986 taking cognizance of offence under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code passed by Shri D. D. Guru, Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in Case No. C 28/85. 2. The facts of the case are a bit complicated. 3. The respondent no. 2 lodged a First Information Report dated 19.4.1984 with regard to an accident as a result whereof one Madan Prasad was killed. In the said First Information Report it was stated that the accident was caused by a Jeep probably bearing registration number BPN 3045. No such vehicle was found but one vehicle bearing the registration number BPL 3045 turned out to be a Scooter. Later on another number of the vehicle viz. BRO 3445 was given which on verification was found to be a Jawa Motor Cycle. Later on the number of the vehicle was changed to BRO 3665 which was a jeep belonging to the State of Bihar and then was in custody of D.F.O. Garwah. The police then submitted a final form stating, inter alia, therein, that the identity of the driver could not be established. 4. The said final form was accepted by an order dated 15.6.1985. A protest petition was filed by the father of the deceased and another protest petition was filed by the respondent no. 1. The respondent no.1 was examined on solemn affirmation and two more witnesses were examined. 5. In the said complaint petition, the number of the Jeep was stated to be BRO 3348 which was allegedly driven by the petitioner at the relevant time. 6. On the basis of the aforementioned materials, the learned court below took cognizance of an offence u/s 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Mr. P. S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised two contentions in support of this application. Firstly he submitted that the aforementioned Jeep bearing Registration number BRO 3665 has met with an accident on 27-1-1983 and the D.F.O who was then in-charge thereof was injured therein. 8. Mr. Dayal, secondly drew my attention to the statement made by the complainant as also two other witnesses and pointed out the contradictions therein. Firstly he submitted that the aforementioned Jeep bearing Registration number BRO 3665 has met with an accident on 27-1-1983 and the D.F.O who was then in-charge thereof was injured therein. 8. Mr. Dayal, secondly drew my attention to the statement made by the complainant as also two other witnesses and pointed out the contradictions therein. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the aforementioned contradictions which are apparent on the face of the record, no conviction of the petitioner is possible to be secured. He submitted that in such a situation the petitioner should not be asked to face the ordeal of a criminal trial. 9. In the instant case, there can not be any doubt that the order taking cognizance is legal. 10. It may be true that on appreciation of evidence, the petitioner may be found to be not guilty of the charges levelled against him. 11. However, it is well know in view of the decision of Supreme Court reported in A.I.R 1976 page 1947 (Nagwwa v. Veeranna) that different considerations must weigh with the court at different stages that is the stage of taking cognizance, framing charge against the accused person and passing an order of conviction. 12. At the stage of taking cognizance the court is not to see whether if the accused is put on trial, he will be convicted or not inasmuch as at that stage he is merely concerned with the fact as to whether a prima facie case has been made out against him or not. It is not the province of the magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case; nor at that stage he can take the defence of the accused in consideration. 13. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and others reported in A.I.R 1989 page. 1 : 1989 PLJR (SC) 6. 14. 13. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and others reported in A.I.R 1989 page. 1 : 1989 PLJR (SC) 6. 14. True it is that in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, this court may prevent abuse of the process of the court but it is also well known that when the magistrate has exercised his discretion judicially, the High Court ordinarily would not substitute its own discretion for that of the magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, proved, would lead to the conviction of the accused. 14. In my opinion, in the instant case the interest of justice will be sub-served, if the petitioner is permitted to raise all contentions at the time of framing of the charge inasmuch as at that stage the court will be in possession of more materials either in support of or against the prosecution story. At that stage the court on the basis of the evidence that may be brought on record may come to the conclusion as to whether the said evidence, even if given face value and taken to be correct shall result in conviction of the accused or not. 15. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, at this stage it will not be proper to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, as mentioned hereinbefore, it will be open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions at the time of framing of the charge. 16. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is dismissed.