IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16256 of 2008 SURENDRA CHOUBEY S/O LATE JATA SHANKAR CHOUBEY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SATWARIYA, P.S. SATHI, IN THE DISTRICT OF WEST CHAMPARAN. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. VINOD OJHA S/O SHEO PUJAN OJHA, VILLAGE & P.S. RAMGARHWA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 30.6.2010. Heard Shri Rajani Kant Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Staste. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in some and substance, has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet, which has been submitted by the police after investigating Sathi P.S. Case No.240 of 2004. Learned counsel, while pressing this petition, submits that in the case provision contained in Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code is not at all attracted. It was submitted that marriage had taken place beyond seven years from the date of occurrence and as such Section 304(B) of 2 I.P.C. is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. He fairly admits that he has not challenged any judicial order, but he has challenged only police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have examined the materials available on record. In the F.I.R. itself, it has been indicated that marriage had taken place within a period of seven years. Moreover, the provision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not meant for entertaining such petition when judicial order is not under challenge. In the case, after registering F.I.R., which was registered under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, police investigated the same and submitted charge sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to inform the court as to whether cognizance has been taken or not. In absence 3 N.H./ of pendency of any proceeding before the court below, it is not required to exercise power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is to be exercised mainly to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. Moreover, in such cases, where the F.I.R. categorically discloses the commission of offence particularly under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, it is not appropriate to interfere with the charge sheet. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and petition stands rejected. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)