PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) TITIONER, the Informant in ) G. R. 1157 of 1988 pending adjudication 1 in the court of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial I Magistrate, Cuttack (in short SDJM),prays for variance of the order dated 1-11-1988 taking -1 cognizance under sections 341/324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC ). According to the petitioner, the materials on record clearly establish existence of offence under section 307, I. P. C. It is submitted that though charge-sheet has been submitted under sections 341/324, I. P. C. , without considering the gravity of the offence committed, the learned SDJM has mechanically taken cognizance under those sections without properly considering materials which would have showed desirability of taking cognizance under section 307, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the informant has very little role to play at the time of taking cognizance, and therefore, the order passed by the learned SDJM does not need any interference. ( 3 ) TAKING cognizance is the threshold act of a judicial proceeding relating to an offence. Cognizance does not involve any formal action and indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, there fore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. Taking cognizance includes the intention of initiating a judicial proceeding against an offender in respect of an offence or taking steps to see whether there is basis for initiating judicial proceeding or for other purpose. Till the process is issued the accused does not come into the picture at all. ( 4 ) THE informant has very little role to play in a case instituted on police report. In this context reference may be made to sections 301 and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Codet ). The underlying object of enacting section 301 of the Code appears to be that when the State undertakes a case, the rights of the complainant become subordinate to that of the State so that the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has no right of audience, unless permitted in that behalf by the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. The underlying object of enacting section 301 of the Code appears to be that when the State undertakes a case, the rights of the complainant become subordinate to that of the State so that the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has no right of audience, unless permitted in that behalf by the Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. With the permission of the Court he may submit written arguments to the Court, irrespective of arguments of the Public Pr9secutor or his consent in this behalf. While section 301 (2) lays down that a lawyer engaged by the complainant can only act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor, section 302 empowers the Magistrate to permit not only the complainant himself or his lawyer but also any other person, subject to the exceptions specified to be in independent charge of the case. This pew was expressed by me in Krishna Kumari Panda and two others v. state and another1. The view has also authority of the Supreme Court in Ashwin v. State of Maharashtra2. Merely because cognizance was taken under sections 341/324, I. P. C, it does not mean that the accused cannot be charged Dr be tried in respect of any other offence. At the stage of framing charge or subsequently, if the Court concerned in satisfied that the accused persons were guilty of some other offences, requisite action can be taken. Section 216 of the Code empowers the Court to alter or and to any charge it any time before judgment is pronounced. Section 240 of the Code deals with framing of charge. At any time during trial of the case at hand, the Court has power to consider the question whether there is desirability of framing charge under section 307, I. P. C. as contended by the petitioner. At this stage, I do not find any scope for interference the non-interference should not mean to convey that I have expressed any opinion about desirability or otherwise of framing charge under any other section apart from sections 341/324, I. P. C. , as done by the learned SDJM. The criminal misc. case is accordingly disposed of Petition dismissed. Petition dismissed.