Judgment ABHIJIT SINHA, J. 1. The two Petitioners who along with others were impleaded as accused in Barhat P.S. Case No. 47 of 2006 are aggrieved by and have sought for the quashing of Order dated, 5th September, 2007 whereby Sri R. Choubey, Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, on perusal of the supplementary chargesheet has found sufficient substance for the offence under Section 307 and other allied Sections of the Penal Code, 27 Arms Act and other provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act and has taken cognizance thereunder. 2. The prosecution case is based on the self statement of S.I.-cum-Officer Incharge of Barhat P.S. recorded on 13.15 hours on 30th March, 2006 wherein it was stated inter alia that he was on duty in Barhat Block to hold Panchayat Election in the year 2006 and while they were proceeding to Dharha Panchayat, they heard the sounds of four-five firings in Sukhleba village whereupon he rushed to the place and found people assembled at the booth who on seeing the Police jeep started dispersing. four-five persons allegedly armed with rifles were seen going towards Ajan river whereupon another team of Police personnel were informed. The Police chased the miscreants whereupon they started firing at the Police and the Police retaliated. Eventually two of the accused were surrounded by the Police who disclosed their names as Ashok Yadav and Guddan Mandal and also disclosed the names of other accomplices as Sahdeo Mandal, Mahendra Mandal and Sanjay Mistri. It is said that the villagers assembled and in their presence a search was made and musket rifles and cartridges were recovered from their possession for which they had no document of authorization and a seizure list thereof was prepared. It is alleged that out of the two Petitioners herein, one was contesting the post of Mukhiya from Dharha Panchayat and that he had handed over one musket rifle and 20 cartridges each. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that both the Petitioners are own brothers and since the Petitioner, Ram Lakhan Yadav, was contesting for the post of Mukhiya, they have been falsely implicated, and that their names have cropped up on the confessional statement of the apprehended accused Ashok Yadav and Guddan Mandal which has no sanctity in the eye of law. It has further been submitted that it is apparent from the self statement that there is no allegation against these two Petitioners of either being armed with illegal arms and ammunitions or were they arrested from or around the voting booth. The allegation of Ram Lakhan having handed over arms and ammunitions has also been denied. 4. In this connection, it was sought to be submitted that the two arrested persons, Ashok Yadav and Guddan Mandal are the muscle men of rival candidate Bijay Yadav and due to village politics and election rivalry both the arrested persons under the persuasion of Bijay Yadav had falsely disclosed the names of these two Petitioners. It was further, submitted that Subodh Yadav, one of the witnesses of the seizure list was also a candidate for Mukhiya and in connivance with Bijay Yadav had become a witness to the seizure list. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners sought to point out that there being no materials in the case diary against the Petitioners the Police had submitted final form, so far as these two Petitioners are concerned, but the learned Magistrate thought otherwise and took cognizance also against the Petitioners. The learned Counsel also sought to point out that as per the settled principles of law once cognizance for offence was taken then there was no occasion to take a second cognizance and the same happens to be an abuse of the process of the Court. The impugned Order was also sought to be assailed on the ground of the same being cryptic in nature and discloses a non application of the mind. 6. It appears from the chargesheet submitted by the Police that while finding sufficient materials against Sahdeo Mandal and Mahendra Mandal, they were chargesheeted but the two F.I.R. named Petitioners were found to be innocent. From the impugned Order, it appears that a supplementary chargesheet with case diary had been received and from the materials in the case diary, the learned Magistrate considered it proper to proceed against these two Petitioners along with the two chargesheeted accused. 7. From the impugned Order, it appears that a supplementary chargesheet with case diary had been received and from the materials in the case diary, the learned Magistrate considered it proper to proceed against these two Petitioners along with the two chargesheeted accused. 7. When once the Petitioners were shown as innocent and a final form had been submitted by the Police, it was open to the Magistrate to have taken cognizance against these two Petitioners if sufficient materials were available in the case diary by differing from the final form submitted by the Police against these two Petitioners but since the investigation had not been shown to be pending against these two Petitioners, it is difficult to understand how a supplementary chargesheet was submitted by the Police against those very persons who in the first chargesheet were shown as innocent and final form had been submitted. In such cases, where people are shown as innocent and final form is submitted, if the Magistrate does not differ with the final form and takes cognizance against those persons, the only option left for including such persons as accused would be when materials come to the fore front in course of deposition of prosecution witnesses during the trial and to summon them under Section 319 Cr. P.C.. 8. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, cognizance taken against these two Petitioners appears to be an abuse of the process of the Court and has to be quashed. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned Order taking cognizance, so far as these two Petitioners are concerned, is hereby set aside.