Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this application filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 7.9.1996 passed in Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 58/94 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga took cognizance under Secs. 147, 149, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act and issued summons against the petitioners and further transferred the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class for commitment of the case. 2. The aforesaid criminal case was registered on the basis of a first information report lodged by one Ram Pukar Choudhary alleging inter alia that on the relevant date he along with Sanjeet Kumar Choudhary and other persons went to Gumsar Pokhar to enable their cattle to drink water and for grazing. While they were returning from the said pond they arrived near southern-eastern Bhinda of the pond and in the meantime saw 20-30 persons belonging to minority community of village Basant. They were alleged to be variously armed with lathial weapons including lathi, bhala, pharsa and guns and started to take their cattle towards their village Basant. The informant and others said to have protested the matter and upon that the petitioners and one Somar Imam Haehmi provoked the other persons as a result of which it was alleged that petitioner No. 3 and one Hasan Shaned fired from his short gun causing injuries to the informant and one co-accused also fired which caused injury to other persons. It was further alleged that the petitioners and other co-accused persons claim the land of Pokhar Bhinda as their grave yard and they have put their boundary over the land with a view to take possession. It appears that after the completion of the investigation the case of the prosecution was found partially true and charge-sheet was submitted only against ten persons showing their names in column 3 whereas the case of the petitioners was found to be false but they were sent up for trial by the police as their names were not shown in column No. 2 of the charge sheet. The petitioners case is that a counter case was registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by one accused being Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 57/94. The petitioners case is that a counter case was registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by one accused being Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 57/94. The petitioners case is that on the basis of fordbeyan of the co-accused the instant case was lodged prior to the case of the prosecution side. It further appears that after the submissions of charge sheet the informant of the instant case filed a petition on 11.11.1994 praying therein to take cognizance against the petitioner whose names were not sent up for trial. The Court below on the basis of evidence and material on record passed the impugned order and issued processes against the petitioners. 3. Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khanl learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that when the charge sheet was submitted by the police after final investigation wherein these petitioners were not sent up for trial, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to issue processes against the petitioners and ordering for commitment of the case to the Court of Session. Learned Counsel then submitted that the learned Magistrate has no power to show any person as accused at this stage when the petitioners were not made accused by the Investigating agency. In support of his statement, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Bhola Rai V/s. State of Bihar 1997 CRI.L.J. 3217. 4. After having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the impugned order passed by the Court below. I am of the opinion that the points raised by the learned Counsel has no substance-From perusal of the impugned order it is manifest that after the submission of the charge-sheet the informant filed petition and made prayer to the Court for taking cognizance against these petitioners also on the ground inter alia that there are sufficient material on the record. The learned Magistrate on the said petition filed by the informant heard counsels appearing for the parties on the question whether there are sufficient ground for proceeding against these petitioners also. The learned Magistrate on the said petition filed by the informant heard counsels appearing for the parties on the question whether there are sufficient ground for proceeding against these petitioners also. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that from perusal of F.I.R. injury report, statements of witnesses in the case diary, the statements of witnesses recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the materials available in the case diary and protest petition filed by the informant, a prima facie case is made out under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act against the accused persons including the petitioners whose name appeared in column 2 and 3 of the charge sheet. The learned Magistrate, therefore, took cognizance against all the accused persons including these petitioners. 5. The only question, therefore, falls for consideration is whether the Magistrate is bound to take cognizance only against those accused persons against whom charge sheet has been submitted or can take cognizance against other accused persons also who have not been charge sheeted by the police if it is found that there are sufficient material on record for proceeding against those accused persons also. 6. Admittedly the impugned order was not passed by the learned Magistrate at the stage of commitment of the case. As noticed above after submission of charge sheet, on the protest petition filed by the informant the learned Magistrate examined the entire materials on record including the case diary and statements recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate found the involvement of all the accused persons in the commission of the offence and therefore cognizance has been taken against all the accused persons. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no illegality committed by the learned Magistrate by passing the impugned order. The decision relied upon by Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan in the case of Bhola Rai V/s. State of Bihar 1997 Cri.L.J. 3217, the facts of the case, was totally different. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no illegality committed by the learned Magistrate by passing the impugned order. The decision relied upon by Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan in the case of Bhola Rai V/s. State of Bihar 1997 Cri.L.J. 3217, the facts of the case, was totally different. In the said case the point has been clarified in paragraph 9 of the decision, the relevant portion of which is quoted hereinunder: It appears to me that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the changes brought about under the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, inasmuch as cognizance is taken of an offence and not against the accused persons. Similarly, the accused persons are not committed to the Court of Session for trial rather the case is committed to the Court of Session for trial. In that view of the matter, I have no doubt in my mind that the learned Magistrate has not correctly construed the law. The position might have been otherwise if after submission of charge sheet against only two accused persons, a protest petition would have been filed from the side of the informant or prosecution for non-charge sheeting the other accused persons named in the first information report. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the impugned order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality and it is in accordance with law. For the reason aforesaid, there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.