IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.1823 of 2008 NANDANI DEVI wife of Nitesh Ranjan, resident of village- Manglapur, Police station- Sangrampur, District- East Champaran. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4/ 27.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as opposite party no.-2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.09.2007, passed by the revisional court in Cr. Revision no. 37 of 2007, affirming the order taking cognizance dated 04.12.2006, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari, whereby he has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant is not the eye witness and one Ramdeo Kuer (at some place mentioned as Rajdeo Kuer) informed him on telephone that all these accused persons including this petitioner assaulted his sister on 28.02.2006, on account of which she succumbed to the injuries. It further appears from the prosecution case that the people of the neighbourhood informed him that his sister has been done to death for want of dowry. Learned counsel submits that aforesaid Rajdeo Kuer in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not take the name of the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel submits that taking of cognizance on statements of hear say witnesses is bad in law. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.-2 submits that a - 2 - revision application was filed against the impugned order taking cognizance, was rejected on 21.09.2007. The petitioner has filed the instant case in the garb of second revision, which is barred under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C. At the stage of cognizance, this Court has only to see if there is prima face material and evidence against the petitioner. The First Information Report does disclose the allegation against the petitioner of having also assaulted the deceased. The issue of the extent of admissibility of some hearsay witnesses could be best appraised at the time of trial. Thus, I am not inclined to quash the order taking cognizance. However, it will be open to the petitioner to take all these points at the time of framing of charge, which would be disposed of on its own merit. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)