JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 12/04/2005 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 302, 201, 328 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners mainly on the ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate without application of his judicial mind and without considering the materials on record has, in a very routine manner, taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners. 3. Suresh Chandra Sinha (respondent No. 2 herein) initially lodged a complaint case No. 946/2001 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, which was sent to the police by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in exercise of the powers under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. directing it to register a case and investigate. Accordingly, the police instituted the F.I.R. being Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 311/2001 under Sections 302, 201, 328 and 120B IPC against the petitioners. 4. The allegation in the F.I.R. in short is that the son of the informant Rajnish Kumar was married to the accused Monika Mani (petitioner No. 2 herein) and she had developed illicit relationship with the accused named in the F.I.R. namely, Prabhat Kumar Srivastava. The accused daughter-in-law of the informant Monika was in habit of spending money unnecessarily and she used to put undue pressure on her husband for wasteful expenditure. The son of the informant was of a very docile nature and he could not object to such an act of his wife because his wife used to creates scenes in the state of anger and she also used to insult her husband off an on. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that the son of the informant also caught his wife and his paramour red handed in some compromising position and, thereafter, it is alleged that the accused persons by hatching conspiracy committed murder of his son at Ramgarh and brought the dead body to Biharsharif with a false death certificate and, then, the dead body was cremated at Patna. - The informant alleged in the F.I.R. that he came to know subsequently that his son, in fact, did not die due to illness or disease rather he was murdered by the accused persons and then the informant lodged the case before the police against the petitioners. 5. The police after investigation submitted final report stateing the case to be of mistake of fact. 6. 5. The police after investigation submitted final report stateing the case to be of mistake of fact. 6. It appears that a protest petition was filed by the informant and then the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the informant on solemn affirmation and also recorded the statement of the witnesses produced on his behalf and then by the impugned order dated 12/04/2005 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 302, 201, 328 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Peprewal has vehemently argued that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner was absolutely illegal in view of the fact that the death certificate, issued by Brindavan Hospital of Research Centre, Ramgarh, as contained in Annexure-9 to this writ application, clearly disclosed that the death of the son of the informant (respondent No. 2) had taken place due to Cardio Respiratory Arrest. 8. It appears that the main allegation of Respondent No. 2 is that the accused persons (petitioners herein) managed to get a false and fabricated death certificate of his son. Therefore, in my view, when this very document, i.e. the death certificate is itself under scrutiny and under challenge and, therefore, on the basis of the said death certificate it cant be said that the deceased died due to Cardio Respiratory arrest and, therefore, cognizance of the offence taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be said to be bad in law. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that even if the entire allegation made by the respondent No. 2 is accepted to be true even then no case at all is made out against the petitioners and it is absolutely clear on the facts and circumstances of the case that the respondent No. 2 has lodged the present case against the petitioners with absolutely malafide intension. It was further argued that the allegation made by the respondent No. 2 was absolutely false and was not reliable at all. In support of his submission Mr. Peprewal has cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works v. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors. reported in 2005 (1) SC 46. 10. It was further argued that the allegation made by the respondent No. 2 was absolutely false and was not reliable at all. In support of his submission Mr. Peprewal has cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works v. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors. reported in 2005 (1) SC 46. 10. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works does not help the petitioners rather the same counters the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. In the aforesaid decision the Apex Court has held that the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of Trial Judge. Of course it has been held in the said decision that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence, it is open to High Court to quash the same. But at the same time it has also been held in the said decision that after the information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the malafide of informant would be of secondary importance. The allegations of malafide against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis of quashing the proceedings. 11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, I have carefully gone through the long impugned order dated 12/04/2005, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and issuing processes against the petitioners and I find that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken pains in dealing with the case of the complainant in detail. He has also discussed and considered the statements of the witnesses examined during enquiry and then after fully applying his judicial mind has held that primafacie case against the petitioners under Sections 302, 201, 328 and 120B IPC, is made out and, thereby, issued processes against them. The order impugned passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be said to be a mechanical order rather I find that the same is well discussed and well reasoned order. Therefore, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioners in mechanical manner cannot be accepted and, as such, the same is rejected. 12. Therefore, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioners in mechanical manner cannot be accepted and, as such, the same is rejected. 12. Accordingly, having found no merit, this application is dismissed.