Satyavrat Verma, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 05.08.2023 passed by Mr. Abhishek Mishra, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Danapur in Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 94 of 2022 whereby cognizance of the offences under Sections 302, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR was instituted by the informant alleging that the petitioners along with their associates came on a motorcycle to the house of the informant and on instigation of their mother, opened fire causing death of her brother-in-law (Dewar), accordingly, the FIR was instituted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that no doubt the allegations as alleged in the FIR is serious, but then the Court should not be swayed merely by the allegations as alleged in the FIR rather the materials which transpired during the course of investigation also has to be taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Danapur while taking cognizance had applied his judicial mind or not, moreso, when the police after investigation submitted final form exonerating the petitioners of the allegations.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the petitioner no. 1 had moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 50018 of 2022. The said case was taken up on 28.09.2022, where it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner no. 1 in the said criminal miscellaneous that father of the petitioner no. 1 is a veteran criminal, but then petitioner no. 1 Sanu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar is a civil engineering student, studying in Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal and on the date of occurrence also he was in the college, as such, the learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 had sought permission to add Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal through its Registrar as opposite party no. 2 and the said institution was, accordingly, permitted to be added as opposite party no. 2 in the said Cr. Misc. No. 50018 of 2022. Further, in the said case, notices were issued on the ground that petitioner no. 1 Sanu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar is a student and if he is implicated in a false case of such serious nature, his entire career would get jeopardized.

6. Learned counsel also submits that petitioner no. 2 Monu Kumar @ Chhotu also approached this Court by filing Cr. Misc. No. 50682 of 2022 seeking anticipatory bail. Learned counsel further draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 19.10.2022 in Cr. Misc. No. 50682 of 2022 and submits that when the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner no. 2 was taken up for consideration, the opening observation of this Court was as follows:—

“It is very easy to reject the present anticipatory bail application, at the outset, solely on the ground that petitioner is alleged to be the assailant of the deceased, but then in the nature of pleadings made in the anticipatory bail application and supplementary affidavit, the Court refrains.”

7. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter Cr. Misc. No. 50682 of 2022 was heard and it was brought to the notice of this Court that the father of the present petitioners is a veteran criminal while the deceased was also a dreaded criminal. Since the father of the petitioners had criminal antecedents, as such, the present petitioners for earning their livelihood and pursuing their studies had moved to Bhopal and Jharkhand respectively. It is next submitted that petitioner no. 2 Monu Kumar @ Chhotu had moved Jharkhand and his maternal uncle had represented the Inspector General of Police, Patna Range seeking a fair investigation in the case bringing to his notice that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner no. 2 i.e. Monu Kumar @