By Court:-Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The complainant-opposite party No. 2 has not appeared in spite of valid service of notice upon him.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.8.2000 passed by Shri M. Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih, in Complaint Case No. 1067 of 1996 |T.R. No. 263 of 2000, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge has been rejected, having found sufficient materials against him for framing the charge for the offences under Sections 147, 427, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It appears that opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint case before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1067 of 1996, alleging therein that the accused persons had harvested away the paddy crop grown by the complainant from the land in question. It appears that on the basis of the enquiry made by the Court below, cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 147, 427, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order taking cognizance was challenged by the petitioner and other co-a