IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.270 of 2009 SURESH MAHTO S/O- RAM KISHAN MAHTO R/O- VILLAGE BAJITPUR, P.S.- MADANPUR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BINOD MAHTO S/O- JAGDISH MAHTO 3. JAGDISH MAHTO S/O- LATE RAMKRIT MAHTO 4. RAJRANIA DEVI W/O- JAGDISH MAHTO 5. MEENA DEVI W/O- SUDARSAN MAHTO, ALL OF VILLAGE JGIRA, P.S.- DEO DISTT. AURANGABAD. For the petitioner : Mr. Nirmal kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 2 30-09-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is the informant. He is aggrieved by order dated 16-12-2008 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate Aurangabad Bihar in Deo P.S. Case No. 82/2008 whereby based on the charge sheet, cognizance under section 304B /201 I.P.C. has been taken against the husband of the victim/deceased. The FIR was lodged by Suresh Mahto against the husband and other in-laws of his daughter alleging therein that the victim was married to Binod Mahto about 25 years ago. He was informed that his daughter was done to death at the matrimonial home. Accordingly, a case under Sections 302,201/34 I.P.C. was instituted. Investigation commenced whereafter it was concluded that materials collected in course of investigation found the husband of the victim guilty of having committed offence(s) punishable under Sections 306/201 I.P.C. 2 Learned Court below perused the police papers including the case diary and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under sections 304/201 I.P.C was made out against the husband of the victim deceased. Let it be recorded that other accused persons were not sent up by the police. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is/are adequate evidence on record that would justify taking cognizance against the other accused persons not sent up by the police (O.P. nos. 2 to 5) it is stated that other accused persons of the case are mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law (gotni of the victim). Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand supported the impugned order. This Court finds from the order impugned that while taking cognizance Learned Magistrate has perused the materials available on record including the case diary and found that the materials available in the diary only implicate the husband. It is to be reiterated here that admittedly the marriage had taken place 25 years ago. Cognizance is taken of an offence. Petitioner shall have adequate opportunity to lead evidence and thereafter pray for summoning of the accused persons not set up for trial if there is/ are sufficient and convincing evidence on record indicating their participation in the crime. Considering the scope of the jurisdiction exercised by learned Magistrate and the observation made hereinabove this court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 3 There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Devendra/pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )