IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.606 of 2009 SUNIL KUMAR …Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Kundan Devi …opposite parties For the petitioner :Mr.Onkar Nath For the State :Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 02. 23.11.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner raises a grievance with regard to the order dated 04.03.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,1st Class, Hilsa, Nalanda in Nagarnausa P.S.Case No.78 of 2008(Tr.No.1933/2009), whereby differing with the conclusion of the I.O. cognizance has been taken under section 306 IPC. As per the prosecution case, the informant along with her son (victim) and daughter were sitting at Darwaza when the petitioner along with another accused came and abused the deceased and held out threats to eliminate him within two-four days. The son was depressed so much by the incident that he consumed poison two days thereafter and died. The police investigated the case and submitted final form whereby the petitioner herein was not sent up for trial. Learned Magistrate perused the case diary and came to the conclusion that at least the mother and father of the victim have supported the prosecution case. On going through the case diary, learned Magistrate has formed a view that there is prima facie material on record justifying the order. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sister of the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is next contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the case. These matters are to be considered at the subsequent stage of the proceeding. This Court upon going through the materials on record including the impugned order, is not satisfied that the prosecution is required to be quashed at the initial stage by interfering with the order impugned. The application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )