JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Md. Faruque Ansari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the opposite party-State.

2. Let the name of Mr. Ravi Prakash be deleted from the cause-list as Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioners.

3. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 07.01.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in connection with Pandu P.S. Case No.28 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1381 of 2013, whereby, cognizance under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.

4. The case was instituted by the informant alleging therein that the marriage of daughter of informant was solemnized with Anis Ansari on 01.04.2013 and at the time of marriage Rs.2 Lakhs cash and other articles were given. It was also alleged that thereafter the accused persons started demanding Rs.5 Lakhs and after 25 days the daughter of the informant was ousted from the house by saying that until the demand is fulfilled she would not be kept. After five days, the father-in-law and Bhasur of the daughter of the informant came and took her with them on assurance of providing motorcycle. On 17.05.2013, new motorcycle worth Rs.75,500/- has been given to the husband. It was further alleged that thereafter again the demand was made and for that the daughter of the informant was being tortured and assaulted. On 07.07.2013, son-in-law had informed the informant that her daughter was coming to Daltonganj and at about 11:00 hours, he again informed him that in course of coming to Daltonganj there was an accident of motorcycle in which the daughter of the informant sustained injury. It was also alleged that in the evening at 05:00 p.m., they came then the informant found that her daughter was senseless. She was taken to Sadar Hospital and thereafter she was referred to RIMS, Ranchi where she was admitted. It was also alleged that the daughter of the informant had indicated that her head was smashed on wall then the informant watched that on several parts of body, there was mark of injury of rod on back and also black spot. It was further alleged that the daughter of the informant was thereafter taken to Santevita Hospital, Ranchi where her treatment was done but on 17.07.2013, she died. It was also alleged that on 17.07.2013, the accused persons were pressurizing the informant not to take any step or to inform the police. The postmortem was done and lastly the informant has stated that the accused persons as named in the F.I.R. have killed the deceased. The F.I.R. was lodged on 20.07.2013.

5. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the occurrence took place on 07.07.2013 as they met with an accident and wife of petitioner no.1 sustained injury. She was taken to the hospital and she was treated in different hospitals and the doctors have also opined that she died due to accident. He further submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioners after 13 days of the occurrence. He draws attention of the Court to the charge-sheet contained in Annexure-2 of the petition and submits that the police has submitted charge-sheet under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner no.1 only and thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. He also submits that the cognizance order is also not a reasoned order. According to him, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate when he was differing with the charge-sheet to at least give a reason of difference of the materials of the charge-sheet, which has not been done in the case in hand. He relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Das & Ors.