IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.31676 of 2009 1. Lalit Ranjan Mishra, S/o Late Sarvanand Mishra 2. Rani Kunwar @Sashi Prabha Kunwar, wife of Late Sarvanand Kunwar Both resident of village-Barauli, P.S. jamhore, District- Aurangabad 3. Arjun Pathak, S/o Late Chandrashekhar Pathak, resident of village-Mainpur, P.S. Kaler, District-Arwal Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Devendra Mishra, S/o Late Ramapati Mishra, resident of village-Dhanari, P.S. Aurangabad Muffasil, District- Aurangabad ---------------------------------- 02. 21.12.2011 Heard Mr. Vindhayachal Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party no. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Complaint Case No. 917 of 2008, whereby the learned Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 was married with the daughter of the complainant- opposite party on 15.06.2005 and whereafter she proceeded to her matrimonial home at Panipat in Haryana. The petitioner no. 1 is working as a Lab Technician in Ganga Ram Medical Hospital, Panipat, Haryana. 2 It is the case of the petitioner that on 19.02.2008 he received information that his wife had been electrocuted in the bathroom. Upon reaching his house he found his wife unconscious and he immediately brought her to the hospital where the doctor declared her brought dead. A statement was taken by the local police which is placed at Annexure-2. A post mortem was conducted to ascertain the cause of death and which certifies that the death was due to electric shock and is placed at Annexure-3 to the application. It is contended that the wife of the petitioner no. 1 was cremated on the local cremation Ghat and the death certificate is placed at Annexure-4 series. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter was also investigated by the local police being a case of unnatural death, and the local police at Gohana Police Station at Sonipat, Haryana has given report of death of the deceased by electric shock. It is the contention of the petitioners that the opposite party no. 2 being fully aware of the situation merely with a view to harass the petitioners had instituted a complaint which upon transfer and registration under Section 156(3) of the Code was registered as an F.I.R. giving rise to Jamhora P.S. Case No. 39 of 2008. The local police upon investigation in the matter submitted a final form on 31.05.2008 placed at Annexure-5. It is stated that two months after submission of the final form on 31.05.2008, a protest was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 on 04.07.2008 which was accepted and registered as Complaint Case No. 917 of 2008. Learned counsel submits that the learned Magistrate even while 3 accepting the final form submitted by the police on 22.08.2008 has gone ahead and taken cognizance of the offences in the light of the statement made by the complainant in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 917 of 2008 and hence the present application. It is the contention of the petitioners that considering the accompanying circumstances and the documents on record which are public documents certifying the death of the wife of the petitioner no. 1 and the daughter of the opposite party no. 2 by electric shock, the matter having been duly enquired by the local police at Haryana as well as the local police at Aurangabad and the final form having been submitted in favour of the petitioners, the learned Magistrate proceeding to take cognizance has committed a serious error and the continuation of the prosecution of the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid circumstances would be an abuse of process of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also raised an issue of jurisdiction submitting that the death having taken place in the State of Haryana, the court at Aurangabad was acting wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 responding to the contentions raised by Mr. Vindhayachal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the defence of the accused is not required to be looked into by the learned Magistrate at the stage of consideration of the complaint and/or during Section 202 enquiry and that the limited jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at that stage is to see whether or not the averments made in the complaint do constitute any 4 criminal offence. It is thus contended that regard being had to the circumstances, the Magistrate having found substantial material for proceeding against the petitioners under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, no indulgence is required into by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials on record, this Court considering the circumstances, is of the opinion that the contentions as canvassed on behalf of the petitioners before this Court and the materials relied upon in support of the same, can be well raised by the petitioners before the court below at the stage of framing of charge including the issue of jurisdiction. With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)