Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.41042 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Madan Chaudhary, S/o Late Garib Das Chaudhary. 2. Lalit Chaudhary, S/o Rajdeo Choudhary, Both are residents of Village - Muraul, P.S. Bajpatti, District Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 11-05-2012 Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manoj Kumar No. 1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Two petitioners, who were specifically named as accused in the F.I.R. i.e. Bajpatti P.S. Case No. 131 of 2009, registered for the offence under [STATUTE] , have approached this court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of an order dated 08.03.2010, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pupri at Sitamarhi. By the said order learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. It was submitted by learned counsel for the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41042 of 2010 (2) dt.11-05-2012 2 / 3 2 petitioners that the learned Magistrate has passed a cryptic and discriminatory order, which requires to be set aside. He submits that since in the case diary there were no sufficient materials, Police while submitting charge sheet had exonerated the petitioners, but the learned Magistrate, differing with the Police report, has passed the impugned order. He submits that, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 05.03.2010, against four accused persons. Both the petitioners were exonerated, and in respect of some others, investigation was kept pending. Of-course, there was no ground for assailing the order, but the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued for quashing of the order of cognizance. The learned Magistrate while differing with the Police report had categorically stated that he had examined number of paragraphs of the case diary, which is evident from the impugned order. Moreover, F.I.R. in the case was lodged naming the two petitioners and other 10-12 unknown persons. After going through the impugned order it is evident that learned Magistrate while perusing and discussing the materials in the case diary had passed a reasoned order of cognizance, differing with the Police report. I do not find any defect in the order. The petition stands dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below with Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41042 of 2010 (2) dt.11-05-2012 3 / 3 3 a direction to proceed with the case expeditiously. Praful/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.