IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37158 of 2008 1) Dinesh Pandey @ Dinesh Kr. Pandey, son of Dharmdeo Pandey, 2) Ram Pravesh Pandey @ Mantu Pandey, son of Jagat Pandey, 3) Rajesh Pandey, son of Shiv Muni Pandey, village Sitabpur, PS Dhansoi, Dist. Buxar – Petitioner. Vs. The State of Bihar. 2 18.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 15.7.2008 passed by the C.J.M, Buxar in Dhansoi PS case No. 55/2007 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences alleged to have been committed under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and 27, Arms Act. The main allegation is that the brother of the deceased saw that Om Prakash Pandey and Ashok Pandey were chasing him with rifle. The informant’s brother had fire arm injury on his back. It is submitted that the petitioner has been made accused because he belonged to the same family. It has specifically been stated that Dinesh Pandey and Ram Pravesh Pandey are working as Private Guards in NOIDA and were not present on the date and time of the occurrence. Similarly it is said that Rajesh Pandey is a retired person and lives at Buxar. These facts have been apparently mentioned in the supervision notes of the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police as well. The question as to whether the petitioner was involved in the occurrence needs not to be tested after evidence is led in the 2 case. At the stage of cognizance this court is not required to go into these aspects of the matter. I, thus, find no illegality in the impugned order. The petitioner would be at liberty to take these points at the time of the trial. This application is dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)