Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. Both Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8889 and 10510 of 1998 (R) have been heard together as they arise out of complaint Case No. 33/98 and 34/98 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghatsila took cognizance and both the applications have been filed for quashing the orders taking cognizance dated 8.9.1998 and 8.10.1998 respectively for the offence under Secs. 147/148/323/447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8889 and 10510 of 1998 (R) are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Short facts giving rise to these applications that two complaint cases were filed against all the petitioners alleging therein that the accused-persons including the petitioners after forming unlawful assembly with weapons came to the field and destroyed paddy seeding Which caused wrongful loss to the opposite party/complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,000.00 approximately. It is further alleged that the accused-persons/petitioners also assaulted by first and slaps. The witnesses/complainant were examined during inquiry and thereafter, the learned Court below took cognizance by the impugned orders aforesaid. 3. Heard earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the earned Counsel for the opposite parties. 4. It is submitted that the whole allegations have been conducted in order to harass the petitioners as a Title Suit has already been filed much prior to the occurrence which is still pending in the Court below in respect of the said land. It is also submitted that the said lands are in continuing possession of the petitioners and the opposite party No. 2 has got no right, title and interest over the same. Moreover, it relates to the civil dispute. It is further argued that the offence under Sec. 323, I.P.C. is not made out as there is nothing against the petitioners as to who assaulted by fist and slaps and the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence. It is also argued that the learned Magistrate taking cognizance has not applied his judicial mind in passing the impugned orders as there is nothing specific against the petitioners for committing the offence. 5. It is also argued that the learned Magistrate taking cognizance has not applied his judicial mind in passing the impugned orders as there is nothing specific against the petitioners for committing the offence. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned Court below has rightly took cognizance after finding prima facie case as the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation as well as other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case during enquiry. Perused the lower Court record. 6. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing processes, the learned Magistrate mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint petition or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused-persons. In the instant case there is specific allegations of assault by fist and slaps. The complainant as well as other witnesses have supported the case of the complainant during the inquiry. If the Magistrate considered the evidence on the record and also gone throught the complaint petition, as it is evident in the case in hand, it will be deemed that the. Magistrate has applied his judicial mind. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate considered the entire evidence on the record in detail and finding sufficient grounds to proceed with the case and thereafter took cognizance the impugned order which does not required to be interfered. Thus there appears no material at this stage to interfere with the impugned order and I do not find merit in the application and accordingly both the applications Cr. Misc 8889 of 1998 (R) and 10510 of 1998 (R) are dismissed. 7. However, the petitioners, if they so like, may raise all the points before the lower Court at the appropriate stage of the trial.