IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13330 of 2008 RAMJEE MAHTO …PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SAKALDEEP MAHTO …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 02. 25.11.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.04.2007, whereby on a consideration of the charge-sheet and documents filed therewith, cognizance under sections 302 and 328/34 IPC has been taken after recording satisfaction that there is/are prima facie materials from the record justifying proceeding further with the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 25.03.2004 the complainant/informant had lodged a U.D.Case in which he himself stated that the deceased son was a drunkard and might have died due to excess drinking. One week thereafter he also made a complaint alleging therein that his deceased son had gone to ‘Sasural’ for taking back his wife where the accused persons administered poisonous substance as a result whereof he died. Learned counsel referring to the complaint, states that the informant/complainant is very emphatic in his complaint/FIR that he could know about the said fact from the post-mortem report. It is contended that till date there is no post-mortem report on record which is the basis of the suspicion giving rise to the present FIR leading to the 2 impugned order. In my view, the petitioner would be well-advised to raise all these issues at the time of framing of charge where the trial court will be in a better position to consider these submissions. In that view of the matter, this Court while declining the prayer made in the application disposes of the application with liberty aforesaid. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )