Judgment 1. The petitioner, one of the four F.I.R. named accused of Madhepura P.S. Case No. 78 of 2007, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 3.8.2007 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, whereby, he having differed from the police report has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 427, 436, 379/34 I.P.C. and issued summons against all the accused persons including the petitioner. 2. One Jamila Khatoon, the informant, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, submitted a written report on 7.3.2007 before the Officer Incharge stating inter alia that she was residing in a hut she had constructed on Government land by the side of the road. It is alleged that at about 12 noon on 6.3.2007 all the named accused persons including the petitioner with the help of unknown others had pulled down the hut and set it on fire and a box and other articles were taken away on a tractor. It is also alleged that she and her son were assaulted. It is claimed that she informed the Mukhiya and the Sarpanch about the matter but they advised her to go to the police. 3. It appears that the police after due investigation submitted a charge-sheet only against accused Niro Yadav under Sections 341, 323, 427 I.P.C. but did not send up the remaining three F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioner as the allegation against them was not found to be true. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on purported perusal of the case diary and materials available differed from the police report and took cognizance under Sections 323, 427, 436, 379/34 I.P.C. against all the four F.I.R. named accused including the petitioner. 4. Assailing the impugned order it has been submitted art benaff of the petitioner that there is no material in the case diary to take cognizance against the petitioner or to issue summons against her and that her name had been falsely dragged in due to enmity at the instance of one Dinesh Singh. The counsel further submitted that several civil litigations are pending between her and the informant and also with Dinesh Singh and the informant never came in possession over the lands on which she had built her hut and that the false case had been filed to pressurize her to withdraw the civil cases. 5. The counsel further submitted that several civil litigations are pending between her and the informant and also with Dinesh Singh and the informant never came in possession over the lands on which she had built her hut and that the false case had been filed to pressurize her to withdraw the civil cases. 5. So far as the point of the Magistrate having differed from the police report is concerned, the point is no longer res Integra and is squarely covered by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court including India Carat Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State ( AIR 1989 SC 885 ) wherein it was held that the Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizarice of the case, if he thinks fit, in exercise of powers under Sections 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and direct the issue of process to the accused. To the same effect are the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in Raghubans Dubey V/s. State of Bihar ( AIR 1967 SC 1167 ), Nagawwa V/s. Veeranna ( AIR 1976 SC 1947 ) and Hareram Satapthy V/s. Tikaram Agarwal ( AIR 1978 SC 1568 ). 6. The other points raised by the learned counsel regarding the enmity and pendency of Civil litigation, all unfortunately happen to be her defence which can neither be looked into nor considered at this stage in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They may be agitated before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. 7. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed.