IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.40876 OF 2008 NAVEEN YADAV, SON OF SHRI RAMAVTAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE THAKURGANJ DIBRI, POLICE STATION THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT KISHANGANJ VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRAKASH GUPTA @ MUNNA GUPTA, SON OF LATE KANHAIYA LAL GUPTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POLICE STATION THAKURGANJ, DISTRICT KISHANGANJ ********* 7 04/08/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2/informant and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 21.07.2008 passed in Thakurganj Police Station Case No. 65 of 2008 (G.R. No. 369 of 2008) by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj has taken cognizance for the offences alleged to have been committed under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant of this case, namely, Prakash Gupta @ Munna Gupta, who is also the brother-in-law of the deceased Asha Devi, has lodged the First Information Report alleging therein that Asha Devi came to her room and told him that she has been set on fire by Naveen Yadav, the petitioner. It is also alleged in the First Information Report that subsequent to that, 2 Naveen Yadav and one Sunil Yadav came to the place of occurrence and took Asha Devi to the hospital to get her treated. She was left at the hospital where she died 10 days later due to the burn injuries. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the investigation has not been done in a proper manner. For this purpose, he had come to this Court earlier by filing Cr.W.J.C. 583 of 2008, which was disposed of on 05.08.2008 saying that it would be open for the petitioner to file a representation before the superior Police Officer for their consideration. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he filed a representation. It is said that vide Annexure-7, the D.I.G., Purnea gave a direction to the Superintendent of Police to investigate the case on 12 points mentioned by him vide letter no. 915 dated 09.08.2008. Subsequent to that, the petitioner again came to this Court by filing Cr.W.J.C. No. 299 of 2009, which was dismissed as premature on 08.09.2009. In the said application, a ground was raised on behalf of the petitioner that the directions of the D.I.G. have not been complied with by the Superintendent of Police. Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, on the other hand, has specifically stated that in fact all the materials are available in the case 3 diary which would indicate that the Superintendent of Police had complied with the directions of the D.I.G. The Court dismissed the application in view of the fact that the petitioner had challenged the order taking cognizance in this case. Counsel for the informant further submits that investigation was done thoroughly and that there are several statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which prima facie support the fact that the petitioner was involved in the said occurrence. It is also submitted that there is a dying declaration of Asha Devi which was recorded before a Magistrate implicating the petitioner. There are certain questions that may be argued on behalf of the petitioner in this case. However, these questions cannot be raised and considered at the stage of cognizance. Obviously, this quashing application has been filed for challenging the order taking cognizance. The Court while taking cognizance has to consider the materials before it in the case diary and pass an appropriate order. Therefore, I find that there is no illegality as far as the order impugned is concerned. Regarding the lack of investigation, the defects in the investigation can be brought to the notice of the Court below at the appropriate stage of the case. 4 This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)