JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Deo, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.03.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under sections 147, 148, 448, 504, 324, 307/149 of the I.P.C. in connection with Sarath P.S.Case No.123/2020, G.R.No.260/2021, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhupur. 3. The first information report was filed alleging therein that on 30.9.2020 when he was at his home at 3 a.m in the morning accused persons namely Kameshwar Pandit, Gondu Pandit, Janamjay Pandit, Tikkait Pandit, Ashok Pandit, all armed with Lathi, spear and sword assembled in front of the house of the informant and started using filthy language and abusing the informant to which he protested and tried to stop them. That it is further alleged that when the informant came out of his house then accused Janamjay assaulted him on head and right hand with the sword. Thereafter on his raising hulla Mantu Pandit, Chakku Pandit, Ashok Pandit and Basanti Devi came to the place of occurrence and started pacifying the situation upon which Tikkait Pandit assaulted Mantu Pandit with a Bhujali on his hand, Kameshwar Pandit gave a punch blow on the chest of Basanti Devi, Gondu Pandit assaulted Sanjay Pandit with iron rod on his right hand, Ashok Pandit assaulted Chakku Pandit with iron rod on his left hand. That it is further alleged that one Sunita Devi had given these deadly weapons to the accused persons and all the accused persons with the intention to kill the injured persons has committed the occurrence. That after the occurrence all the injured persons were taken to CHC hospital Sarath for treatment. Hence, on the basis of the aforesaid statement Sarath P.S.Case No.123 of 2020 has been registered against the petitioners under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 448 and 504 IPC” 4. Mr. Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. Hence, on the basis of the aforesaid statement Sarath P.S.Case No.123 of 2020 has been registered against the petitioners under section 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 448 and 504 IPC” 4. Mr. Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. He submits that the case was investigated by the police and the police submitted charge sheet wherein the case under sections 147, 148, 448, 504 and 324 IPC has been found, however, charge sheet has not been submitted under section 307 and 324 of the IPC. The learned court has taken cognizance under sections 307 and 324 of the IPC. He submits that without there being injury the learned court has taken cognizance under section 307 and in absence of any injury report which is one of the ingredients for taking cognizance under section 307 of the IPC. On this ground, Mr. Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the learned Magistrate was intended to take cognizance under section 307 IPC he is required to provide reasons of differing with the charge sheet as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation’, (2012) 11 SCC 465 . On this ground, he submits that the cognizance order so far as section 307 IPC is concerned, is bad. 5. Per contra, Mr. Deo, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2 submits that the allegation of assault is there with regard to sword and fists and the petitioner no.2 assaulted with Bhujali. 6. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that injury report is there in the charge sheet. It has been stated that the persons injured were examined before the hospital. 7. In view of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that the reasoned order has been passed by the learned court and the learned court has also recorded the materials in the case diary and thereafter has taken cognizance. In the charge sheet it has been disclosed that the injured persons were sent for medical treatment. To justify conviction under section 307 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. In the charge sheet it has been disclosed that the injured persons were sent for medical treatment. To justify conviction under section 307 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act foreboding death. It is sufficient in law if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. Such act being proximate to the crime intended and if the attempt has gone so far that it would have been complete as held in ‘Sagayam v. State of Karnataka’, AIR 2000 SC 2161 . Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that injury on the body is not essential as an ingredient for taking cognizance under section 307 IPC. Thus, there is no illegality in the cognizance order. 8. Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.3073 of 2021 is dismissed. 9. I.A. if any also stands disposed of.