IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.29073 OF 2008 1. SATENDRA KUMAR, SON OF SHRI KRISHNA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BRAHAMPUR, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION PHULWARISHARIFF, DISTRICT PATNA 2. ARBIND KUMAR, SON OF RAM KISHUN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BRAHAMPUR, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION PHULWARISHARIFF, DISTRICT PATNA 3. SMT. SANGEETA DEVI @ SANILA DEVI, WIFE OF ARBIND KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BRAHAMPUR, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION PHULWARISHARIFF, DISTRICT PATNA 4. SUBODH KUMAR, SON OF LATE CHANDRADEEP SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ANDA, POST OFFICE ANDA, POLICE STATION PHULWARISHARIFF, DISTRICT PATNA 5. SMT. SANJU DEVI, WIFE OF SUBODH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ANDA, POST OFFICE ANDA, POLICE STATION PHULWARISHARIFF, DISTRICT PATNA 6. SUMITRA DEVI, WIFE OF KRISHNA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILALGE BRAHAMPUR, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION PHULWARISHARIFF, DISTRICT PATNA ……………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAM BALAK SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM SWAROOP SINGH, GRAM JAGDEV PATH, MURLIGANJ, POLICE STATION GARDANIBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA ……………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES ******** 2 21/06/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2007 passed in Danapur Police Station Case No. 179 of 2005 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 304B and 328 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the marriage is 12 years old and therefore, it would not 2 come within the purview of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the report of the Chemical Analyst indicates that no poisonous substance was found in the visceras which has been preserved for the examination and as such, it cannot be alleged that the petitioners were responsible for the death of the informant’s daughter. The arguments advanced before this Court would be considered by the concerned Court at the stage of framing of the charges, if raised on behalf of the petitioners. In fact, the Court below would be in a better position to frame charges under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code or Section 306A or 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in case it finds that there is evidence to indicate that this is a case of murder. I find no merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )