IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24708 of 2007 PARAS SINGH, son of Late Hari Singh, Resident of village- Mustaffapur, Police Station- Surajgarha, District- Lakhisarai. … Petitioner. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ajit Kumar Choudhary son of Lallan Lal Choudhary, resident of village- Charoun, P. S. Muffasil Munger, Dist. Munger. .. Opposite parties. ----------- 6. 04.02.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order taking cognizance has submitted that learned magistrate while differing with the police report was required to give a detailed reason and that is how the impugned order cannot be sustained. He has further referred to the fact that the marriage in question of the deceased had taken place some time 11 years back prior to the occurrence as alleged in the first information report but then the cognizance has been taken under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code wherein the only offences committed within seven years of marriage, can be made subject matter for that section. Counsel for the petitioner also relies on an order of this court dated 2 5.8.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 4971 of 2008 arising out of same prosecution in the case of co-accused Satya Narayan Singh whereby this court has allowed the case of co-accused by remitting the matter back to Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made therein above. In the opinion of this court, reasons for differing with police report is quite elaborate in the impugned order as would be found from the following passage made thereon: “….On perusal of the case-diary, I find that several witnesses have been examined. The informant clearly supported the case during investigation and he stated in para-4 of the case-diary that accused persons murdered his elder sister by pressing throat. In para- 5 the witness Sanjay Chaudhary also supported the case of the informant and it is stated that accused persons murdered the elder sister of the informant Pammi Kumari by pressing throat on 18.9.200 and dead body was concealed and it is also stated that the accused persons demanded dowry from the informant. In para-6 of the case-diary, the witness Ram Chandra Sharma also supported the case of the informant. In Para-9, the witness Siya Ram Singh also supported the whole case of the informant. On 3 Perusal of the case-diary in para- 161, I find that the D.S.P. Lakhisarai supervised the case he found the case, true and in his supervision note, he observed that the case u/s 304 B/201/34 of the I.P.C. is made out because Pammi Kumari deceased murdered due to cruelty and demand of dowry. Thus, on perusal of the entire evidence as mentioned in the case-diary there is sufficient material to take cognizance against the accused persons.” In the considered opinion of this court, learned Magistrate at the time of differing with the police report is not required to render a judgment on materials available on record but he has to simply give some indication as to why he has chosen to differ with the findings and the conclusion of the police in the final report. The impugned order is not faulty at least in this respect. Next submission of counsel for the petitioner that marriage in question had taken place some 11 years back and therefore no offence could be made out under Section 304 B I.P.C. and consequently the order taking cognizance is bad, has to be again appreciated in the backdrop of the scheme under Code of Criminal Procedure. 4 Finally in the order of this Court dated 5.8.2009 in the case of Satya Narayan Singh (supra) it is found that this court had remitted the matter back to the learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for reconsideration of the matter. Such reconsideration can definitely be made even at the stage of framing of charge. In view of above, this court would not find any reason to interfere with the order taking cognizance. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)