IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.30378 of 2008 1. Murari Thakur, son of Gagandeo Thakur. 2. Gagandeo Thakur, son of Late Raghunath Thakur. 3. Shukhchain Devi, wife of Gagandeo Thakur. 4. Kanchan Thakur, son of Gagandeo Thakur. 5. Kamini Kumari, daughter of Gagandeo Thakur. 6. Golia Devi, wife of Kanchan Thakur, all residents of village-Punaura, P.S. Sitamarhi, District-Sitamarhi. ………………………………………………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Yogendra Thakur, son of Late Achhelal Thakur, of village-Manik Chowk, P.S. Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners: M/s. Mahendra Thakur & Vijay Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ------------------------------- 2. 16.9.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners have filed this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the order dated 22.1.2007 passed by Sri R.B. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi, in Complaint Case No.258 of 2006, Tr. No.1997 of 2007, summoning the accused- petitioners on inquiry finding prima facie case against them 2 for the offence under Sections 498 (A) and 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that initially, on the basis of the written report of the informant, Yogendra Thakur, the maternal uncle of the deceased, Reena Devi, the wife of petitioner no.1, Murari Thakur, Sitamarhi P.S. Case No.225 of 2002 was instituted against the accused-petitioners under Sections 498(A) and 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and on investigation, the police submitted final form with conclusion that the case is untrue, but later on, the informant, Yogendra Thakur, filed a Protest-cum-Complaint Petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.258 of 2006 against the accused- petitioners for the offence under Sections 498(A), 304(B)/34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in which the learned Magistrate summoned the accused-petitioners, on inquiry, for the offence under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code without considering the fact that it had come in course of investigation that the deceased-Reena Devi, died in natural death in the hospital. 3 From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate on perusal of the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the complainant-informant and the statements of the witnesses has come to the conclusion that prima facie case for the offence under Sections 498(A) and 304 (B) of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the accused- petitioners and, accordingly, summoned them. At the time of summoning the accused-petitioners on inquiry, the Magistrate is only required to see whether on perusal of the complaint petition, solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. At that time, he is not required to look the defence of the accused or factual materials of investigation. As such, I find no illegality in the impugned order to show the abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all these points, raised herein, at the appropriate stage during the course of the trial. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)