ORDER The petitioner who is one of the F.I.R. named accused of Khagaul P.S. Case No. 38 of 2005 has prayed for quashing of the order dated 23.2.2006 passed therein by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistarate, Danapur. whereby he has taken cognizance against the four charge-sheeted accused including the petitioner under Sections 447, 269, 270, 278/38 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 2. It appears that the aforesaid police case was registered on the basis of a written report of one Chandra Shekhar Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Khagaul Police Station, at around 10.00 A.M. on 14.3.2005 inter alia stating that he formed a team of police personnel for removing illegal Khatals in pursuance of the directions of the High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2290 of 1990 as also the Wireless Message received from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, and in course, thereof they proceeded to Saidpura where they found on the lands behind Jagat Narayan Lal College illege Khatals of Sunil Kumar, petitioner herein, Raghunath Prasad, Baldev Singh, Achal Bihari Singh and Bhuneshwar Mahto flourishing on the lands of the College and who on seeing police party fled whereupon the five Khatals were demolished and animals and other articles were taken away by the female members of the accuseds’ family. It is also stated that due to stacking of cow dung, the atmosphere had become polluted and there was probability of severe diseases cropping up. 3. The police after due investigation submitted a charge-sheet and by order dated 23.2.2006, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner summoning him to face trial. 4. Assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted on behalf of the petition that he has been falsely implicated in this case as would be apparent from the First Information Report itself that the land whereupon the Khatals of the accused herein had been established on the lands of the College and yet the police swung into action notwithstanding there being no complaint from the College authorities. It has also been submitted that although the police claim to have demolished five Khatals but curiously neither the cattle nor any articles therefrom was seized and no inventory was prepared to show that the Khatals were running in an illegal manner. It has also been submitted that although the police claim to have demolished five Khatals but curiously neither the cattle nor any articles therefrom was seized and no inventory was prepared to show that the Khatals were running in an illegal manner. It was further submitted that the Khatals were running since the past several years and was allegedly demolished on 14.3.2005 and cognizance has been taken on 23.3.2006, and as such, it was hopelessly barred by limitation. 5. The learned counsel also criticized the plea as made out in the statement of the informant that the ladies had managed to take away cattle as also the other materials cannot be accepted since large contingent of police personnels were available at the spot at the relevant time. Grievance I has also been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the police not having recorded the statement of a single person other than the police officials during the entire investigation. In this connection, it was submitted that the statement of College authorities or of the neighbours had not been recorded and nevertheless charge-sheet had been submitted. 6. The specious argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are unfortunately his defence and also involves the looking into disputed facts and figures which cannot be done in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As such, I do not find any scope for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all these Issues at the time of framing of the charges.