JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Four out of five accused persons in I.C.C. No. 10 of 1994 of the Court of J.M.F.C., Baramba have filed this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') with the prayer to quash the order dated 30.6.1997. The complainant is the opposite party in the present case. 2. Opposite party filed a complaint which was registered as I.C.C. No. 10 of 1994 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Baramba in which the present Petitioners figure as accused persons. In that complaint, the complainant alleged that at about 2 A.M. on 24.1.1994 the accused persons trespassed into her house, searched for her husband, accused Sachidananda intimidated her by show of knife, accused Bichitra snatched away the gold necklace from her neck and they also removed a cash of Rs. 1 200/-. The complainant also alleged that on 24.1. 1 994 she reported the matter before the police, but no action was taken, for which he filed the complaint on 31.1.1 994. Learned Magistrate undertook an enquiry u/s 202 of the Code and on 28.1 1.1 994 passed order issuing process against the Petitioners and the co-accused persons having taken cognizance of the offence u/s 395, I.P.C. Petitioners challenged that order in this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2449 of 1 994. Two contentions were raised at that stage, viz., (i) the mandatory provision in Section 2] 0 was not followed; and (ii) the enquiry conducted by the Magistrate was not in conformity with the provision in the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Code. On 12th December, 1996 this Court disposed of that Criminal Misc. Case with the findings that since the complainant had explained in the complaint that due to inaction of the police she had to file the complaint, therefore, non-compliance of Section 210 is not sufficient to invalidate the order of cognizance and issue of process. On the second contention, this Court observed that: In the present case there is no material to hold that the single witness left out by the Magistrate, is either any eye witness to the occurrence in the complaint petition, or that he is a formal witness whose evidence would not help to disclose the occurrence alleged. On the second contention, this Court observed that: In the present case there is no material to hold that the single witness left out by the Magistrate, is either any eye witness to the occurrence in the complaint petition, or that he is a formal witness whose evidence would not help to disclose the occurrence alleged. If he happens to be an eye witness to the occurrence or a material witness, then the Magistrate is bound to examine him and non-examination of the witness win is a serious defect since it will be against the provisions of the Code. But non-examination of such a material witness can be only at the risk of the complainant. Therefore, relying on the decisions in the case of Gokulananda and Dhaneswar (supra) it would be appropriate to quash the impugned order. But I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Das that the entire proceeding should be quashed. Accordingly, the case was remanded. 3. After remand, the complainant declined to examine that witness. Thus, on perusal of the statements of the witnesses ( examined in the enquiry u/s 202 of the Code), learned J.M.F.C. passed order on 8.4.1997 to issue process against the accused persons in view of the cognizance taken against them for the offence punishable u/s 395, I.P.C.. It appears from the order dated 30.6.1997 (impugned order) that on 12.5.1997 the present Petitioners filed a petition in the Court below to re-consider the cognizance order and on 25.6.1997 they filed another petition to call for the station diary entry dated 24.1.1994 from Manibandha Outpost and station diary entry dated 7.1.1994 from Bhapur Out-post for better appreciation of the circumstances relating to the prosecution case. Similar two applications individually filed by the co-accused Sribatsa Bara were also taken up for consideration and a speaking order was passed in rejecting all such applications. In substance, learned J.M.F.C. held that in view of existence of a prima facie case he was not inclined to re-consider or recall the order of cognizance followed by the order for issue of process. He also found no justification for calling for those station diary entries. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the allegation in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses did not show that accused persons committed dacoit, inasmuch as it is accused Bichitra, as alleged, snatched away the gold necklace. He also found no justification for calling for those station diary entries. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that the allegation in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses did not show that accused persons committed dacoit, inasmuch as it is accused Bichitra, as alleged, snatched away the gold necklace. In the absence of any evidence that the other accused persons have shared the common intention or the common object with the said accused for removal of such movables, an offence punishable u/s 395, I.P.C. is not made out. Accordingly, the Petitioners argued to quash the order of cognizance u/s 395, I.P.C. 5. The aforesaid argument of the Petitioners was heard be rejected inasmuch as the statements recorded in the enquiry u/s 202, of the Code the above stated allegations against he accused persons have been corroborated stated. That prima facie makes out a case u/s 395, I.P.C. At such stage, the defense plea of non-sharing of common intention or common object is of no relevance and that can be considered at the time of trial on proper evaluation of evidence on record. Learned J.M.F.C. in a speaking order has stated regarding existence of a prima facie case for the offence punishable u/s 395, I.P.C. This Court does not find any illegality in that assessment of statements. Hence, it is neither proper nor desirable for this Court to enter into a roving enquiry in exercise of the jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code to upset a reasonable order of cognizance. Since the order of learned J.M.F.C. does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or unreasonableness, the order of cognizance is not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, when he refused to reconsider the same or to recall the same vide the impugned order, that order is also not liable to be interfered with. 6. It may be noted that the Petitioners have the opportunity of apprising the trial Court at the stage of consideration of charge, i.e., at the stage under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code regarding the lacuna, if any, (as they say) in the prosecution case not to make out a prima facie case u/s 395, I.P.C. It is needless to say that at that stage if such contention shall be raised, keeping In view the provision u/s 227 of the Code, the trial Court shall be duty bound to consider the same. In the above context the case of Aintha Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa 1996 (1) Cri 123; and Sambar Malik and Others Vs. Gopala Malik and Others, respectively relating to the stage at what an order of cognizance can be interfered with in exercise of the power u/s 482 of the Code and what constitutes an offence u/s 395, I.P.C. are found distinguishable on facts in view of the aforesaid factual findings of this Court concurring with the impugned order of the learned Magistrate. 7. Petitioners also raised another contention that the mandatory provision u/s 210 of the Code was not followed and, therefore, the cognizance order is liable to be quashed. That argument was also heard to be rejected inasmuch as in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2449 of 1994, as noted above, this Court has already rejected such argument of the Petitioners and the same reasoning is adopted in this judgment too. 8. In the result, the Crl. Misc. Case is dismissed. 9. Since the complaint case is of the year 1994, therefore learned J.M.F.C., Baramba may do well to expedite the committal proceeding and to complete it as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court below immediately. Final Result : Dismissed