IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.44397 OF 2008 1. SIYARAM CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE BUCHAI CHOUDHARY 2. SITA RAM CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE BUCHAI CHOUDHARY 3. SURESH CHOUDHARY, SON OF SHRI SITA RAM CHOUDHARY 4. DINESH CHOUDHARY, SON OF SHRI SIYA RAM CHOUDHARY 5. RAJES CHOUDHARY @ PINTU CHOUDHARY, SON OF SHRI GANGAI CHOUDHARY 6. LAL BAHADUR MANDAL, SON OF LATE MANA MANDAL ALL RESIDENT OF VILALGE HATDH RUPAULI, POLICE STATION BHAIRAB ASTHAN, DISTRICT MADHUBANI ………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ASHOK KUMAR SAHU, SON OF SHRI PRABHU SAHU, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARARAKH PAHI, POLICE STATION BHAIRAB ASTHAN, DISTRICT MADHUBANI ………………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES *********** 2 29/07/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that cognizance has been taken under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 09.07.2008 passed in Jhanjharpur (Bhairab Asthan) Police Station Case No. 85 of 2006 (Trial No. 3014 of 2008/G.R. No. 812 of 2006). It is submitted that the facts in the First Information Report do not disclose the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The question as to whether Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code would be attracted in this case would depend upon the evidence, manner of occurrence, weapon used ad the injuries sustained, if any, on the 2 victim. These aspects of the matter can only be decided during the trial of the case. At present, I find no illegality in the order impugned. This application is according dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)