Honble MADAN, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The grievance of the petitioners as unfolded by the instant misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, hereinafter referred to as `the Code is that on the basis of the FIR which was lodged against the petitioners and the co-accused, challan was put up before the concerned trial Magistrate on 25.9.1996 against one Kishanlal alone for the commission of the alleged offence under Section 447 and 302 IPC. One Latur son of deceased Mangilal had moved an application before the Court of ACJM for taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners who were summoned through non-bailable warrants by the concerned Magistrate vide its order dated 8.1.97. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended at the bar that the misc. petition is maintainable against the impugned-order dated 8.1.97 of the learned ACJM who took cognizance against all the accused as named in the FIR vide its order dated 6.1.97. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Committal Court had acted beyond the scope of its jurisdiction by taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners on the basis of FIR since it is revealed that the accused have not been named in the FIR and there is no allegation regarding any participation of the accused in the occurrence and consequently the Committal Court was not competent to take cognizance against the accused since no overt act had been attributed to the accused-petitioners. He has further contended at the bar that from the injury report of the deceased Mangilal only one injury was assigned to the accused and the same is not attributable to the petitioners. His further contention is that the order of the Committal Court taking cognizance is also contrary to the provisions of Section 319 of the Code for the reason that the accused cannot be implicated or charged for any new offence at a later stage either by the Investigating Agency or by the Committal Court particularly when, the challan has been put up only against one of the accused and the Committal Court is not competent to initiate the proceedings against co-accused against whom the police has not filed any charge-sheet before the concerned Court. I am of the considered view that the contention as so advanced by the learn- ed counsel for the petitioners is not tenable in law for the reason that there is no bar to Committal Magistrate to take cognizance against the accused even though they have not been named in the charge-sheet but though their names are specifically recorded in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. From the perusal of the impugned-order, it is apparent that the petitioners have been specifically named by the complainant not only in the FIR itself but also in the statements recorded under Section 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. I am further of the view that the petitioners can have no grievance at this stage because no prejudice would be caused to them since they are yet to be tried by the concerned trial Court and only if on the basis of prima-facie evidence led by the prosecution if any case is made out involving their complicity in the offence only then the committal proceedings would be justifiable which is not the stage at the moment. Moreover, this is a pre-charge stage and the charge has yet to be framed against the accused. (3). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Rajkishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar (1), as well as the judgment of Patna High Court in the matter of Bholarai and Anr. vs. State of Bihar (2). I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid judgments and in my view the ratio of the aforesaid judgments do not help in advancing the case of the petitioners in any manner. There is no merit in this misc. petition and the same is consequently rejected.