Judgment 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 15.7.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah (wrongly mentioned as SDJM, Bettiah) in Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 223/98 by which he has rejected the prayer of the prosecution to take cognizance against opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 regarding the murder of one Ram Chandra Sah. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It appears that on the statement of the petitioner an FIR was registered at Manjhauliya Police Station under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping his uncle Bhikhari Sah showing opposite party Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 as suspects. The impugned order shows that during investigation it transpired that a ransom was demanded for the release of Bhikhari Sah and when Ram Chandra Sah went with ransom money, he was murdered within the jurisdiction of Malahi Police Station for which a separate case was registered at that police station. It further appears from the impugned order that the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Shambhu Yadav showing Laxmi Yadav and Rakesh Giri as dead and Naga Yadav and Genhari Yadav as absconders. It also appears that a petition was filed by the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance against opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 for the murder of Ram Chandra Sah and the learned counsel for the petitioner was also heard and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the materials in the case diary held that as a separate case has been registered at Malahi Police Station, there is no material to differ from the charge-sheet submitted under Section 364-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and takes cognizance for the offence of murder of Ram Chandra Sah. Accordingly, by the impugned order he took cognizance only under Section 364-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Shambhu Yadav and directed to issue production warrant against him and disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was sufficient materials against opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 in the case diary. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was sufficient materials against opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 in the case diary. Victim Bhikhari Sah in his statement under Section 164 of the Code has also named them as his abductors but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not proceed against them and, hence, the impugned order is bad. 5. The impugned order, as already mentioned above, shows that the charge-sheet was submitted against only accused Shambhu Yadav and that on that basis cognizance was taken against him. No prayer appears to have been made by the petitioner in his above petition for issuing summons against the others. Therefore, if by the impugned order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not issue processes against opposite party Nos. 2 to 6, the impugned order would not be bad on that ground. 6. Therefore, I do not find sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. The prosecution, however, would be at liberty to file petition during trial under Section 319 of the Code to add them as parties if evidence appears against them for the abduction of the said Bhikhari Sah. 7. With the above observation, this application is dismissed.