The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the petitioner's minority and the potential lack of offence against him, allowing for further challenge at a later stage of the trial.

1. Heard learned counsel fpr the parties.

2. The petitioner prays for quashing an order dated 29.6.2007, passed by In-charge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar in G.R. No. 274 of 2007, T.R. No. 2156 of 2007, arising out of Rajpur Police Station Case No. 29 of 2007, by which cognizance for offences under Sections 447, 341, 324, 307/34 I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioner, though police after investigation had submitted final form opining that petitioner is innocent.

3. The petitioner submits that even assuming the prosecution case to be true, the petitioner may be said to be a member of mob and only allegation against him is that he too abused others. The petitioner further submits that it would appear from the prosecution case that Surendra Nath Singh instigated, whereupon accused Durgesh fired from his licence gun causing injury to Jai Shankar Choube. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he has assailed the impugned order taking cognizance on the following grounds:

(a) Petitioner is a 14 years old minor boy. In support of his contention, the petitioner has annexed Annexure-2 also.

(b) Many prosecution witnesses including Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Ram Awatar Choube, Rang Nath Choube, Priyanka Kumari & Puja Kumari, both daughters of Radhe Shyam Choube have stated that petitioner was not present and he remained in Buxar, where he studies in local school.

4. He submits that police did not find involvement of the petitioner in the instant case and even the informant in his subsequent statement stated that he was not present at the time of occurrence.

5. Mr. Ojha, appearing for opp. party no. 2 states that though there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and he has been arrayed as a member of the mob. As such, offence alleged against him would come under the purview of common intention liable to be tried under Section 307/34 I.P.C.

6. It is true that in course of investigation various witnesses including the informant have disclaimed the involvement of petitioner, nevertheless, some have stated that he was present at the time of occurrence.

7. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to quash order taking cognizance. However, taking into consideration Annexure-2, Admit card Matriculation exam of petitioner issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, as also a certificate of the School Headmaster regarding his age as well as statements of some of the prosecution witnesses that petitioner was minor at the time of occurrence, the learned Magistrate would first consider the issue of minority.

8. it would be open to the petitioner to raise his point at any subsequent stage of trial that no offence is made out against him.

9. The instant petition stands disposed of with aforesaid directions.