IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1533 of 2011 KUNDAN KUMAR @ KUNDAN KUMAR PRIYADARSHI & ORS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2/ 27.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on the merits of the petition, which seeks quashing of order dated 15.11.2010 in Complaint Case No. 1005 C of 2005 passed by Smt. Rachna Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna by which the magistrate directed framing of the charge against the accused persons under section 498A of the IPC. The attention of the court was attempted to be drawn on the documents annexed to the present petition, which includes some of the orders passed by different benches of this Court at the time of entertaining petitions under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as may appear from Annexure 4 series as also a particular enquiry report said to be submitted by a DIG rank officer on certain allegation petition. But, as may be apparent from the scheme of the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to the trial of the cases instituted ‘otherwise than on police report’, the evidence under section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was the only relevant material to be considered while proceeding to examine the propriety of prayer made under section 245 of the Code or an order of framing of charges under section 246 of the Cr.P.C. During the present hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners produced before me a copy of deposition sheet of Saroj 2 Kumari, mother of the complainant in the case from which I find that her evidence recorded under section 244 of the Cr.P.C. duly required an order of the nature to be passed as was passed by the learned magistrate. As regards the orders of this court passed in applications under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., this could simply be pointed out that those orders do not have any relevance to the stage of the proceedings as was carried out by the magistrate nor other materials were required to be considered except the statements of witnesses recorded under section 244 of the Cr.P.C. The petition appears of no merit. It is dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)