ORDER Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. Both the applications were heard together as they have arisen out of the same first information report. 2. Both the applications have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for quashing the orders dated 19.8.1996 and 28.7.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Lesliganj P.S. Case No. 3 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. No. 56 of 1996 in which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 363, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in short as stated is that one Girija Prasad Singh gave a statement on 16.1.1996 before Lesliganj Police Station alleging therein that his son Vikash Kumar Singh was missing. It is further alleged that on 18.1.1996 Paras Singh came to him and tried to assault him and he kidnapped the son of the informant at 10 a.m. and after killing him, threw the dead body in a well. On 18.1.1996, one Bahadur Singh saw the dead body of his son floating in the well. It is further alleged that Girija Singh killed the boy due to previous enmity and accord-ingly, first information report was lodged. 4. The investigation was made and the charge-sheet was submitted against accused Mahendra Singh. It appears from the record that Bahadur Singh was also examined under Section 164 of the Code. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Paras Singh (In Cr. M.P. No. 4693/2001) submitted that Bahadur Singh who is the brother of Girija Prasad Singh, the informant, reported to the Superintendent of Police, Palamau, stating therein that his elder brother Mahendra Singh, petitioner (In Cr. MP. No. 4723 of 2001) has kidnapped his nephew Vikash Kumar Singh because of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, had allotted work of Rupees five lacs for construction of a Project to Sri Girija Prasad Singh, whereas Mahendra Singh was claiming share in the said work, but after two days, i.e. on 18.1.1996 a case was registered by Girija Prasad Singh in which the name of the petitioner Paras Singh was given which is false and without any basis, his name was mentioned in the first information report but there is no eye witness of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer also did not find anything specific against the petitioner Paras Singh and the charge-sheet was submitted only against Mahendra Singh. It is further argued that final report was submitted as against the petitioner Paras Singh but one application was filed by the informant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate protesting the said final report and the matter was reinvestigated by the police and. as such, the learned Magistrate committed error in taking cognizance against the accused-petitioner Paras Singh though there is no legal evidence against him. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Mahendra Singh submitted that he is neither named in the first information report nor there is anything specific against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence and the police wrongly submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner though there is no direct evidence against him. It is further submitted that the first information report was lodged against Paras Singh being named accused but the petitioner Mahendra Singh has been falsely implicated in the case. It is also submitted that the informant Girija Prasad Singh. Smt. Amla Devi, Smt. Bio Kuer and Saleya Kumari were examined under Section 164 of the Code and they have categorically stated in their statements that it was Paras Singh who is directly involved in the murder of the boy, but the Court below wrongly took cognizance of the offences under Sections 363, 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code against this petitioner (Mahendra Singh). 7. Obviously investigation was done by the Police and submitted charge-sheet against Mahendra Singh and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after perusing the case diary took cognizance of the offence as far back as on 19.8.1996. It is further clear that the first information report was lodged by name against Paras Singh and one protest petition was also filed by the informant and thereafter some witnesses were examined under Section 164 of the Code and they have also named Paras Singh for his involvement in the murder. Thus from the evidence collected during the course of investigation" under Section 164 of the Code, there was also material against Mahendra Singh and by the statement made under Section 164 of the Code, the material also came to light against Paras Singh who is named in the first information report. Thus from the evidence collected during the course of investigation" under Section 164 of the Code, there was also material against Mahendra Singh and by the statement made under Section 164 of the Code, the material also came to light against Paras Singh who is named in the first information report. In such situation, it is clear that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly took cognizance of the offences against both the accused persons as prima facie case has been made out under Sections 302/363/201. IPC against both the applicants at this stage. However, the matter will be clear only at the stage of trial when the witnesses were examined and cross-examined in the Court. At this moment, there appears a prima facie case made out for the offences aforesaid against both the applicants. 8. In the result. I do not find any merit in both the applications which are dismissed.