IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.32315 of 2007 1. SANTOSH KUMAR PANDEY @ JAGAN PANDEY, Son of Shri Kameshwar Pandey, 2. Kameshwar Pandey, Son of late Jai Narain Pandey, 3. Bhawani Devi, Wife of Kameshwar Pandey, All the above are resident of Village- Mithiladeep, P.S.-Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani. 4. Vaidehi Devi, Wife of Shri Indu Kumar Pandey, Daughter of Kameshwar Pandey, resident of village- Gharbanki, P.S.-Basopatti, District- Madhubani. . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sarvesh Kr. Singh, S/o Mahesh Narayan Singh of village Mahpur, P.S.-Bisti (Patauna O.P.) Dist. Madhubani. . . . . Opp. Parties. ----------- 5/ 08.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.05.2007 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 304 B and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that marriage took place in June, 2001. In the First Information Report it is alleged that the victim was done to death by administering poison. He submits that initially a complaint case was filed, which was subsequently sent to police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel submits that petitioners took all the care of the deceased and got her treated time to time. In support of his contention, learned counsel has annexed Annexure-2, which is the treatment documents/prescriptions of the deceased since 2002 and onwards. He submits that in anticipatory bail application the verification of these documents have taken place. Learned counsel submits that from these medical prescriptions, it would appear that the deceased died on account of cardio respiratory failure. - 2 - Learned counsel for the informant submits that witnesses have alleged that accused persons used to torture the victim for want of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the same they have killed the deceased. After hearing the parties, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order taking cognizance. However, it will be open to the petitioners to raise all these points at the time of framing of charge. With the above observation, this application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)