IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.49307 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Rai 2. Sachindra Rai 3. Sunil Kumar Rai alias Sunil Rai 4. Anil Kumar Rai alias Anil Rai Sons of Ranglal Rai. 5. Shanti Devi wife of Sunil Kumar Rai alias Sunil Rai. 6. Deomuni Devi wife of Ranglal Rai. All residents of village- Badurahi, P.S. Sonpur, District- Saran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. N. Hoda, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. ====================================================== 2 25-08-2011 Heard. The petitioners have filed the present petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. invoking the inherent powers of this Court for quashing the order dated 20.03.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran, Chapra in connection with Sonpur P.S. Case No. 184 of 2005 dated 09.10.2005, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Section 304(B)/120(B) of the Indian penal Code. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R., vide Annexure-1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the F.I.R. is based on a complaint petition filed belatedly by the complainant. He submits that even during the course of investigation the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution allegation. Therefore, order taking cognizance is not sustainable in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49307 of 2008 (2) dt.25-08-2011 2 the eye of law. I am afraid, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are completely misconceived. It is well known in legal field that even if any complaint petition is filed in the court, then the learned Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. sends the complaint petition to the Police with a direction to institute a case and submit final form on close of investigation. In the present case also, complaint petition was filed in the court and learned Magistrate, in exercise of his powers in terms of Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. directed the police to institute a case and submit a final form. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid complaint petition, a formal F.I.R. was registered and the investigation was taken up. In the impugned order dated 20.03.2007, the learned Magistrate has mentioned that during the course of investigation several witnesses have supported the prosecution case. On the basis of materials available on record, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned. Consequently, the application stands dismissed. B Tiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)