IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10372 of 2008 SATYA NARAYAN MANDAL, SON OF LATE DURGA MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TOLA KHUTHARI, POLICE STATION – KAHALGAON, DISTRICT – BHAGALPUR. ………………………… PETITIOENR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAM ISHWAR PRASAD, SON OF BUDHAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMBA NAGAR, POLICE STATION – NOORSARAI, DISTRICT – NALANDA. ………………. OPP. PARTY. ----------- 02/ 17.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a petition for quashing the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by Sri Manoj Kuamr – II, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Biharsharif (Nalanda) in Noorsarai Police Station Case No. 76 of 2005 G.R. No. 918 of 2005, Tr. No. 2832 of 2007 by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dead body of the victim was found lying on Sarbadipur Ogri Road near N.T.P.C Railway line and for which a U.D case regarding the recovery of body was filed and subsequently after three months a case of kidnapping was filed. However, final form was submitted and thereafter the notice was issued to the informant. Informant filed a protest petition and thereafter hearing the parties and taking into consideration the case diary the learned court below held that there is prima facie evidence against the four accused persons and hence took cognizance against them under Section 364 of the Cr.P.C. However, he has also mentioned that para 7, 8, 9, 24, 25 and 26 2 prescribe about the material against the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that he has earlier filed a case and the case filed by the informant of this case is much after the occurrence after three months of the occurrence and both the cases have been filed with regard to the death of a person who happens to be the son-in-law of the petitioner and the son of the informant and both have filed the case and submit that the case against him against unknown is under investigation. However, a counter version of the U.D Case or a counter case with regard to the same occurrence is not prohibited and hence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this petition and hence this petition is dismissed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)