JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - This is an application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. In this application, the petitioners call in question the legality of the order dated 11.7.1989 passed by the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur thereby taking cognizance of the case against the petitioners under Sections 323/34 and 294, I.P.C. 2. The present opposite party was the complainant in the Court below. She has lodged a complaint before the learned Magistrate against the present petitioners alleging that on 8.5.1989, the cow of accused Pramod damaged the straw of the complainant. When the son of the complainant wanted to drive out the said cow, then all the accused persons entered into her bari and assaulted the complainant and her sons and also hurled abusive languages. It has been alleged that as a result of assault, the complainant and her son sustained injuries. 3. Learned Magistrate called for a report from the Officer-in-charge, Ghasipura police-station and took the evidence of two witnesses produced by the complainant. On the basis of the report of the police as well as on the statement of the witnesses produced by the complainant, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order took cognizance of the case against the petitioners under Sections 323/34 and 294, I.P.C., and issued summons against them fixing a date for their appearance. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, the present petitioners have approached this Court by filing this application. 5. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 6. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind at all before taking cognizance of the case inasmuch as the station diary entry would reveal that there was no allegation whatsoever against the petitioners except petitioner No.1 to the effect that he had assaulted the opposite party by hand and gave a push to Suresh. 7. It appears that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case basing on the initial statement of witnesses examined by the complainant and an the basis of the report of the Police. The Station Diary entry has not been placed on record. 7. It appears that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case basing on the initial statement of witnesses examined by the complainant and an the basis of the report of the Police. The Station Diary entry has not been placed on record. In course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has produced a certified copy of the same to indicate that initially the complainant made no complaint against all the petitioners but has restricted her complaint only against the present petitioner No. 1. In the petition of complaint, however, the present opposite party has implicated all the petitioners. In the initial statement of witnesses all the petitioners have also been implicated. However, the statement of witnesses recorded by the Magistrate would demonstrate that all the present petitioners are involved in the offence. Therefore, the complainant (O.P.) succeeded in establishing a prima facie case against the present petitioners. At this stage, it could not be proper to scrutinise and weigh the evidence. On examination of the record, it appears that no illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence and as such, no interference seems necessary. Accordingly, the application fails and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed