Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This application under the inherent powers of this Court for and on behalf of the seven petitioners herein is directed against the impugned order of cognizance dated 27-11-93, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, in Saharsa (Bihar) PS Case No. 198/93, whereby cognizance has been taken of the alleged offences under Secs. 447, 144, 379, 411 and 120-B, I.P.C., and the petitioners have been summoned to stand their trial, 2. The informants (opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 herein) had written a letter dated 14-4-93, to the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa, alleging therein that Lakshmi Prasad Yadav, Secretary of the temple trust in question, Ram Prasad Yadav, Dy. Secretary, and Keli Dasin are the office bearers of the temple trust in question. The Thakurbari in question owns and possesses 25 bighas of land. Paddy crops are growing on 2 bighas and 3 kathas of the said land, and it has kash growth on 1 bigha and 12 kathas of the said land. On 31-3-93 at about 10O clock, the accused-persons mentioned therein along with 25 other unknown persons armed with lathis, bhalas and guns came upon the aforesaid land in question and forcibly harvested the crops on 1 bigha and 12 kathas and forcibly took away the same, to the khalihan of Bishwanath Yadav. The harvested crops are valued at Rs. 5,000.00 . Again on 11-4-93 at about 7 a.m., the accused-persons had gone forcibly harvested crops on about 2 bighas and 3 kathas of the aforesaid lands, and had forcibly taken away the same to the khalihan of Bishwanath Yadav. The crops are valued at Rs. 3.000.00 . The S.P. had forwarded the same to the Officer-in-charge, Bihra Police Station, vide his letter contained in memo No, 3617 dated 14-4-93 (Annexure-1), on the basis of which ultimately a formal FIR was drawn and was registered as Bihra PS Case No. 198/93, dated 21-4-93. The police investigated the allegations and submitted its charge-sheet on the basis of which the impugned order of cognizance has been passed. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order of cognizance, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are false and frivolous and has been started against the petitioners only because the alleged office-bearers mentioned in the FIR had been ousted by petitioner No. 1. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order of cognizance, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are false and frivolous and has been started against the petitioners only because the alleged office-bearers mentioned in the FIR had been ousted by petitioner No. 1. By notification contained in memo No. 2634 dated 18-1-93, issued by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, petitioner No. 1 was nominated as Hony. Secretary of the trust along with other members mentioned therein. Photocopy of the said notification is marked Annexure-3. He further submits that petitioner No. 1 in due discharge of his duties, and as authorised vide Annexure-3, had harvested the crops and taken proper possession of the same for the proper and beneficial use of the Thakurbari. In his submission, the signatories to the letter were misusing the trust property and arrogating the proceeds for their personal benefit, which was sought to be checked by petitioner No. 1. 4. Learned APP opposes the impugned order of cognizance and says that it raises the questions of facts which should be thrashed during course of the trial. None appears on behalf of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this application has to be dismissed. There are clear allegations in the FIR (Annexure-2), that petitioner No. 1 along with other accused-persons armed with lathis, bhalas and guns had gone upon the Thakurbari lands, forcibly harvested the crops on two occasions, and had forcibly removed the same to the khalihan of Bishwanath Yadav. It is manifest from plain reading of the allegations in the FIR that the entire Act, prima facie, were forcible and with a show of force. It does not, prima fade, in the least create impression of bona fide exercise of authority vide Annexure-3. Secondly, learned APP is right in his submission that the colour of office vide Annexure-3 was at best conferred on petitioner No. 1. There is allegation against the remaining petitioners. Learned APP is further right in his submission that issuance of the notification marked Annexure-3 and all the remaining contentions of the petitioners amount to introducing their defence which cannot be entertained in a quashing petition. 6. In the result, this quashing petition is dismissed, and the impugned order of cognizance dated 27-11-93, passed in Saharsa (Bihra) PS Case No. 198/93, is hereby upheld. 6. In the result, this quashing petition is dismissed, and the impugned order of cognizance dated 27-11-93, passed in Saharsa (Bihra) PS Case No. 198/93, is hereby upheld. This being a fairly old case, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months.