IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7547 of 2008 1. CHANDREEP PRASAD 2. UMESH PRASAD 3. RAJO PRASAD ALIAS RAJARAM PRASAD, ALL SONS OF DURGA PRASAD 4. SITABIA DEVI WIFE OF DURGA PRASAD 5. SHAKILA DEVI WIFE OF UMESH PRASAD 6. SAMIRITA DEVI WIFE OF RAJO PRASAD ALIAS RAJA PRASAD 7. PAWAN SON OF RAJA PRASAD 8. PINKI KUMARI DAUGHTER OF UMESH PRASAD 9. KUNAL PRASAD SON OF UMESH PRASAD ALL RESIDENT OF MEHANDI BIGHA, POLICE STATION-CHANDI, DISTRICT-NALANDA. -PETITIOENRS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BINDA PRASAD ALIAS SURYA PRAKASH SINGH SON OF RAM LAKHAN YADAV, RESIDENT OF SALEMPUR, P.S. KARYA PARSURAY, DISTRICT-NALANDA. -OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners : M/s Soni Shrivastava & Anjani Kumar Jha For Opp.Party no.2 : M/s Tej Narayan Singh & Satyendra Pd. Singh 4 30.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, opposite party no.2 and the State. This is an application seeking quashing of order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa in Chandi P.S. Case no. 240 of 2007 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 304B, 201 and 2 498A /34 of the Indian Penal Code. Relevant facts of the case is that the informant’s sister, who was married with petitioner no.1, remained issueless for about six years and she died. As per informant’s case she was subjected to cruelty and torture, demand of dowry was also there but, on the other hand, it is the case of the petitioners that she was not keeping good health and despite all possible treatment, hospitalization at PMCH also for a few days, she lost her life during process. Every thing was known to her maternal side and the members were present in cremation etc. Considering all such materials, Police submitted final form but the court below, taking a different view, took cognizance of the offence. Due to lapse of time it is presumed that case must have been committed and stage of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arrived. It is open to the petitioners to place all the points before the trial court at the time of hearing on the point of charge, if on going through the materials the court below feels that no purpose will be served if the trial is proceeded, petitioners’ case may be 3 considered for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this regard, there is decision of Apex Court in the case of Shri Satish Mehra Vrs. Delhi Administration & Ors., reported in 1997 BBCJ 53(SC) = 1996(7) JT 6 (SC). With this liberty, the petition stands disposed of. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad