The legal point established is that a defect or illegality in investigation has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial, and for taking cognizance, only a prima facie case needs to be established.

1. The informant of Asarganj P.S. Case No. 62 of 2006 has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 17.4.2007 passed therein by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, whereby while taking cognizance under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 149 I.P.C. against all the 10 F.I.R. named accused (O.P. Nos. 2 to 11 herein) has refused to take cognizance under Section 307 I.P.C. notwithstanding the injuries being on vital parts of the body of the injured persons.

2. It appears that the informant petitioner submitted a written report before the Officer- in-Charge, Asarganj P.S. on 3.11.2006 alleging therein inter alia that on 1.11.2006 Raushan Choudhary the son of the accused Om Prakash Choudhary assaulted his son and as the petitioner had gone to Patna High Court wherefrom he returned back in the night of 2.11.2006 and learnt about the said occurrence and accordingly on 3.11.2006 he alongwith Prahalad Choudhary and others at around 7 A.M. went to the house of co-villager Dashrath Choudhary and as he was talking to him accused Om Prakash Choudhary and Purnand Choudhary assaulted him with fist and slaps and the Chetnanand Choudhary and inmates of the house were assaulted by remaining accused with rods and danda. Purnanand Choudhary and Om Prakash Choudhary are also alleged to have assaulted the informant on head with intention to kill him as a result whereof he sustained bleeding injuries. It is alleged that on hearing his hulla his wife, daughter and son came to his rescue but they too were assaulted by the accused persons with danda causing injury to them. It is also alleged that accused Prahalad assaulted his son with fist and slaps. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by several co-villagers and passersby. It is alleged that since the accused persons are anti-social elements the villagers are not in a position to support the allegations against them. The further case of the petitioner is that the accused persons also surrounded his house with muscleman but he managed to escape and had arrived at the Police Station to lodge the case.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that being aggrieved by the perfunctory nature of the investigation he filed a protest petition on 27.11.2006 categorically stating therein that he had sustained injury on vital parts of the body and notwithstanding the same the police in collusion with the accused persons was adamant not to submit a charge- sheet under Section 307 I.P.C. The petitioner also sought to bring to the notice of the Court the perfunctory nature of investigation by submitting that although he had produced the T-shirt he was wearing at the relevant time which was fully covered with blood stains but the police did not take the same into consideration with a view to demolish the case of the prosecution. It was further sought to be submitted that the injury sustained by the petitioner were over the parietal region and frontal region of the skull and the nature and manner of assault clearly makes out a case of intention to kill the petitioner and his entire family including his children. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to appreciate the injuries on the vital parts and erred in not taking cognizance under Section 307 I.P.C. and that too when the petitioner happened to be a lawyer by profession.

4. Section 190 Cr.P.C. encompasses the various ways in which a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence which are three in number namely: (a) upon a complaint, (b) upon a police report, and (c) upon other information or Magistrates own knowledge. The expression "taking of cognizance" has not been defined but does involve any formal action or action of any kind which occurs when a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence for initiating judicial proceeding or taking steps to see whether there is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings. As observed in the case of "H.N. Rishbud V/s. State