Judgment 1. The six petitioners herein who have been made to figure as accused in Complaint Case No. 109(C) 2006, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi (Patna) have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 25.5.2006 whereby cognizance has been taken against them under Sections 323 and 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story, as culled out from the Complaint petition filed on 4.5.2006 by the O.P. no. 2 herein, inter alia is that on the previous day he alongwith the witnesses of the complaint had gone to Masaurhi Bazar to withdraw Rs. 20,000.00 from the Bank to provide financial assistance in the marriage of the daughter of his relative. Having withdrawn the money and purchased certain articles as he was returning home alongwith the ¦ witnesses and enroute as they reached Banarsi Pool near village Bairichak at around 2 P.M. all the accused persons, variously armed with lethal weapons, suddenly came out from under the bridge and surrounded the complainant and his witnesses. Thereafter, on the orders of accused Sakaldeo Sharma to loot and kill the complainant, accused Arun pointed a pistol at the complainant and Rajnikant Sharma pointed his pistol at the two witnesses and they threatened to kill if they raised bulla. It is said that then accused Arun pointing the pistol at complainant took away the bag containing Rs. 20,000.00 in cash which he had withdrawn from the Bank and two items of golden jewellery which he had purchased for the marriage and acoused Rakesh Kumar took away Titan wrist watch worth Rs. 1000/-. In the meanwhile accused Rajnikant at the point of pistol took away Rs. 500/-from witness, Sri Niwas Sharma and accused Jwala Sharma took away Rs. 500/-from the upper pocket of witness, Babban Kumar. Thereafter the accused persons assaulting the complainant and his witnesses with the pistols butt and causing them injury fled away. It is further said that the complainant went to lodge informantion at the Police Station and as no steps were taken by the police he was compelled to file the complaint which according to prayer was requested to be sent to the police station under Sec.156 of Cr.P.C. 3. However, as it appears that the learned Magistrate instead of acting under Sec.156 Cr.RC. held enquiry under Sec.202 Cr.RC. However, as it appears that the learned Magistrate instead of acting under Sec.156 Cr.RC. held enquiry under Sec.202 Cr.RC. and came to the opinion that prima facie the offences aforesaid had been committed by the accused persons who were accordingly summoned. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely dragged into this case because of previous enmity. In this connection it was sought to be submitted that for the same occurrence accused, Sakaldeo Prasad Singh alias Sakaldeo Sharma had given his statement before the A.S.I, of Pirbahore Police Station in the Emergency Ward of P.M.C.H. while undergoing treatment for grievous injury and on the basis thereof Masaurhi (Bhagwanganj) RS. Case No. 50 of 2006 came to be registered under Sections 326, 307, 379 and other allied Sections of the Penal Code wherein the complainant and his witnesses of the instant complaint [109(C) of 2006] were impleaded as accused. It has also been submitted that accused of the said complaint in connivance with two of his witnesses who are none but the family members of accused of Masaurhi (Bhagwanganj) RS. Case No. 50/06 has filed this false case. 5. In support of his defence the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the nephew of the present complainant had filed on petitioner no.3 and brother of petitioner no.3, namely Shantosh Kumar and his wife, Shobha Kumari who received injury at the said occurrence. It was further submitted that petitioner no. 1 and his other family members who are influencial people had gained over the local Police. It is also submitted that petitioner no.1 due to fear and want of justice kept knocking at the doors of the authorities concerned and complained of threatening which they had received from the complainant and his family members but the same was of no use. Petitioner no. 1 also lodged complaints with the authorities apprehending their false implication but they too were of no use. Eventually the petitioner no. 1 had filed a protest petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi. 6. The contention of the petitioners are that there being pre-existing enmity between the parties the petitioners had been falsely implicated in this case and notwithstanding contradictions in the statement of the witnesses of the complainant in the enquiry the learned Magistrate had erred in taking cognizance. 1 had filed a protest petition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi. 6. The contention of the petitioners are that there being pre-existing enmity between the parties the petitioners had been falsely implicated in this case and notwithstanding contradictions in the statement of the witnesses of the complainant in the enquiry the learned Magistrate had erred in taking cognizance. In support of his statement and in his defence instances were pointed out of how the petitioners had been wronged. 7. The High Court in exercise of its power under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. will not look into the defence of the alleged wrong doer since those are matters to be considered at the trial. For the present the Court was only required to see on consideration of the evidence available before it in the records, as to whether a prima facie case had been made out or not. The High Court was neither required to reappraise the evidence available before the learned Magistrate nor substitute its own view point in place of the satisfaction of the Magistrate. 8. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.