IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27891 of 2010 1. SIDHESHWAR PRASAD @ SIDHESHWAR MAHTO, SON OF LATE PRAGAS MAHTO 2. ASHOK KUMAR VERMA 3. RAJ KUMAR SINHA BOTH SONS OF SIDHESHWAR PRASAD @ SIDHESHWAR MAHTO 4. INDU KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SIDHESHWAR PRASAD @ SIDHESHWAR MAHTO ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE – INDAUT, P.S. HILSA, DISTT. NALANDA. ------- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SRI UMESH KUMAR, SON OF LATE GOVIND PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ALODIA SARAI, P.S. MAUPUR, DISTT. NALANDA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 11.02.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, IIIrd, Hilsa, Nalanda, in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2009 in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 120(B)/34 and 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that before the present First Information Report was instituted, the deceased had given her statement that she had accidentally consumed pesticides on account of which a U.D. case was instituted. The brother of the deceased who is the Complainant of the present First Information Report had also supported this fact then. However, later on, he resiled and filed the present First Information Report. The further submission is that during investigation, all the independent witnesses supported the fact 2 that the deceased had died on account of consuming pesticides and it was not a case of murder. The grievance of the petitioners is that all these facts had not been considered by the trial court while considering the prayer for discharge. In my view, since there is a very limited scope at the stage of framing of charge to look into the materials appearing against/for the accused and these are matters which can only be thrashed out at the stage of trial, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The application is dismissed. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)