Shailendra Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3 and Mr. Ram Sumiran Roy, learned APPs appearing for the State in Cr. Misc. No. 53947/2015 and Cr. Misc. No. 55695/2015 respectively and Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in both the petitions.

2. Both the petitions have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) with a prayer to quash the order dated 07.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 175/2013 (G.R. No. 969/2013), whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC against the petitioners and others. The petitioner, namely, Ram Agya Singh @ Ram Adya Singh (petitioner No. 1 of Cr. Misc. No. 53947/2015) died after filing his petition and by order dated 16.05.2024, the criminal Miscellaneous No. 53947 of 2015 was directed to run in respect of the rest petitioners only.

3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant’s youngest son, namely, Arvind Kumar, aged about 16 years, who used to load sand in the trucks with the help of JCB machine died due to an accident. When he was doing his labour work, the bucket of the JCB machines hit him on his head and consequently, he died and due to fear, JCB operators and munshi of sand ghat (Balu ghat) disposed of his body on the bank of Sone river and there were two JCB operators, one munshi, four other persons including the petitioners and three other persons of Doghara Tola village at Balu Ghat when the alleged occurrence of accident took place. Admittedly, the informant is not an eyewitness of the occurrence and according to him when he reached at the Balu Ghat, he did not find his son and at that time, JCB machines were also not working and he suspected that his son had been killed by the petitioners and others after hatching a conspiracy and the dead body had been disappeared by them and accordingly, the case was lodged mainly on the basis of suspicion. During investigation, no one claimed to have seen the occurrence as alleged by the informant and the investigating officer apprehended the JCB machine operators, namely, Dadan Choudhary, and Guddu Kumar (petitioner No.2 of Cr. Misc. No. 55695/2015) and got their statements recorded and came to know that the informant’s son died of an accident happened due to JCB bucket’s hitting to the head of the deceased and thereafter, the investigating officer made his best effort with the help of dog squad to trace out the dead body or his remains but on account of devastating flood in Sone river, the dead body could not have been found out and it was presumed that the dead body might have been swift away in the flood. It is further submitted that the informant filed Cr.WJC No. 70/2014 in the form of habeas corpus for the latches of the police official in tracing out the victim or his body then at the direction given by this Court in said Cr.WJC, the Polygraphy Test of JCB operator and munshi was done and even then the factum of accidental death of informant’s son came out only and after the investigation, the concerned police officer submitted chargesheet under Sections 304A, 287, 281 and 120B of IPC only against three named accused persons including the petitioner Guddu Kumar and the investigation was kept pending in respect of the petitioners, Ram Agya Singh @ Ram Adya Singh (now deceased petitioner), Nanda Yadav @ Nand Kishore Yadav, Jagdish Yadav and Sidheshwar Prasad @ Baunand Yadav. At the time of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate did not take into consideration the fact that in respect of all the petitioners except the petitioner Guddu Kumar, there was no police report either in the form of chargesheet or final report and the cognizance was taken despite the investigation in respect of them being pending before the p