IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47372 of 2007 NARESH MAHTO, SON OF RAM GOVIND MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUKARAULI, KARAN CHATRA, P.S.- DOKTI, DISTRICT- BALIA (U.P.) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MARACHHIYA DEVI, WIFE OF DHANESHWAR MAHTO, 3. DHANESHWAR MAHTO, SON OF BHIKHARI MAHTO BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KUTUBPUR, P.S.- DORIGANJ, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA. ----------- 4 22.03.2010 Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite parties are present. Petitioner assails the order dated 20.6.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra in Doriganj P.S. case no. 80 of 2005 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 304B/201 Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is father-in-law. One Marachhiya Devi filed a written complaint (later treated as an F.I.R.) against the petitioner and others alleging therein that her daughter had married with the son of the petitioner sometime in the year 1998. The daughter of the informant had earlier lodged a case under Sections 498A/323/406 IPC against her in-laws. On the date of occurrence, accused persons arrived at the house of the informant and started exerting pressure for compromise/withdrawal of the aforesaid criminal case. Subsequently, they gave a ‘laddu’ to the daughter of the complainant which she ate and immediately thereafter felt uneasy and after some time, she died. 2 Learned counsel for the informant (opposite party no. 2) submitted that there is/are sufficient material/evidence on record that will definitely justify the order taking cognizance. This court finds from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate on perusal of the entire material available on record, including the case diary, has taken cognizance in the matter. There is no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )