CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS NO. 34587 OF 2006 ********* (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) ******* 1. PAULI RAM, SON OF LATE FIRANGI RAM 2. GIRDHAR RAM, SON OF LATE FIRANGI RAM 3. RAMDEO RAM, SON OF LATE FIRANGI RAM 4. RAJESH RAM, SON OF RAMDEO RAM 5. SANJAY RAM, SON OF RAMDEO RAM ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAMSHUDDINPUR, POLICE STATION RIVILGANJ, DISTRICT SARAN …………………………………………………………….………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MANOJ RAM, SON OF LATE CHANDERDIP RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAMSHUDINPUR, POLICE STATION RIVILGANJ, DISTRICT SARAN ………………………………… ……………………….……..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, SR. ADV. MR. RAKESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR O.P. NO. 2 :- MR. TEJ PRATAP SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. ******* P R E S E N T HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. The petitioners have filed this quashing application challenging the order dated 31.07.2006 passed in Rivilganj Police Station Case No. 26 of 2004 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 304/34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegations in the First Information Report are 2 that on 09.04.2006, the informant’s children were at the Government hand pump. In the mean time, it is said that the women of the petitioners’ house came to the hand pump and there has been some sort of altercation. The informant claims that the petitioners came to the hand pump and assaulted the mother of the informant and threw her on the ground. She hit the hand pump, as a result of which she became unconscious and was admitted to the hospital, where she died on 10.04.2004. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the son of the informant claims that in fact his father was not present at the place of occurrence and, therefore, the case as made out in the First Information Report has been instituted due to enmity. It has also been pointed out that the witnesses who have been examined have named the ladies of the house and the male members were not present accordingly to the witnesses examined at paragraph nos. 9 to 12 of the case diary. The post mortem report and the F.S.L. report indicate that in fact there was no injury on the person of the deceased and as such, the story that she was thrown on the ground and assault appears to be false and fabricated. It is also submitted that prima facie the independent witnesses do not support the manner of occurrence as far as the participation of these petitioners are concerned, as such, it is submitted that the 3 Court below is not justified in taking cognizance of the offences. 4. In my opinion, these aspects of the matter cannot be considered at the stage of cognizance. The petitioners would be at liberty to raise all these issues at the appropriate stage of the case. 5. This application is disposed of. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 18th APRIL, 2011 N.A.F.R./ANAND