JUDGMENT : Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 20.12.2013 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in Complaint Case No. 161 of 2011 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners and further to quash the entire subsequent proceedings of the case so far as the petitioners are concerned. 2. The facts, which are relevant in this case, in short, is that initially on the basis of information given by the informant/complainant, a formal F.I.R. was lodged as Balumath P.S. Case No.84 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 425 of 2010 under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and two others. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted final form in favour of the petitioners and two others showing lack of evidence against them. Thereafter, on 11.01.2011, the complainant/O.P. No.2 filed a protest petition in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar which was accepted vide order dated 07.08.2011 and was treated to be a fresh complaint and was registered as Complaint Case No. 161 of 2011. The prosecution case based on the Protest Petition alleging interalia is that on 29.06.2010 at about 8.00 p.m., the complainant's son namely Bablu Nayak (deceased) was in his house. The petitioner no.1 came to his house and called Bablu Nayak out of the house for some work in the house of petitioner no.1. Thereafter, when Bablu Nayak did not return to his house, the wife of the complainant went to the house of the petitioner no.1 where she saw the accused persons including the petitioner sitting in the house and talking to each other. On arrival of the wife of the complainant they became silent. The petitioner no.1 told her that he has already taken her son to her house and he will reach soon. The wife of the complainant returned to her house, but her son did not come to her house. In the morning, the complainant came to know that his son is lying dead in a well. Thereafter, with the help of villagers, the dead body was taken out from the well. The wife of the complainant returned to her house, but her son did not come to her house. In the morning, the complainant came to know that his son is lying dead in a well. Thereafter, with the help of villagers, the dead body was taken out from the well. The complainant saw injury on the head of the deceased and marks on his neck. In the meantime, the accused persons also reached there and said that the incident has taken place due to darkness. Thereafter, the dead body was buried in the earth. The complainant was in Kolkata on the day of occurrence and he was informed by Ganesh Nayak on telephone. The complainant returned from Kolkata to his house on 01.07.2010 at 5.00 p.m. and he attempted to exhume the dead body for cremation, but the accused persons forbade him to do so. The complainant suspected that the accused person have killed the deceased and have thrown the dead body in the well. The complainant took out the dead body from the burial and did funeral of the dead body. After recording the statements of the complainant/O.P. No.2 on solemn affirmation and statements of the enquiry witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar by his order dated 20.12.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 161 of 2011 took cognizance of the offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and one Ali Hasan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are wholly innocent and have committed no offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and as such no case is made out against the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no circumstantial evidence against the petitioners suggesting that the deceased was killed by the petitioners. There is no material in the entire records of the case as to how the death of the deceased occurred. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is previous enmity of the petitioners with the complainant on account of long existing land disputes. Both the inquiry witnesses i.e. mother and sister of the deceased are hearsay witnesses and hence, their evidences are not sufficient to proceed against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is previous enmity of the petitioners with the complainant on account of long existing land disputes. Both the inquiry witnesses i.e. mother and sister of the deceased are hearsay witnesses and hence, their evidences are not sufficient to proceed against the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and further submitted that there are ample materials against petitioner and as such prima facie case is made out against him for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C. and as such the impugned order taking cognizance is fully justified. 5. From the rival contention of the parties and from records of the case, the order taking cognizance at this stage cannot be quashed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance for the offences alleged against accused persons after perusal of the case diary, charge-sheet and other materials placed before the Court. The cognizance was taken as a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Amanullah v. State of Bihar; (2016) 6 SCC 699 in Para 25 held as under: 25. “A careful reading of the material placed on record reveals that the learned CJM took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons after a perusal of the case diary, charge-sheet and other material placed before the court. The cognizance was taken, as a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court should not get into the merits of the case made out by the police, in the charge-sheet filed by them, with a view to calculate the success rate of prosecution in that particular case. At this stage, the court's duty is limited to the extent of finding out whether from the material placed before it, the offence alleged therein against the accused is made out or not with a view to proceed further with the case.” 26. The proposition of law relating to Section 482 CrPC has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in Bhajan Lal case. The relevant paras 102 and 103 of which read thus: (SCC pp. 37879) “102. The proposition of law relating to Section 482 CrPC has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in Bhajan Lal case. The relevant paras 102 and 103 of which read thus: (SCC pp. 37879) “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 7. From rival submissions of the parties and from the records of the case, the order taking cognizance cannot be quashed at this stage as prima facie case is made out against accused persons. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, legal propositions and the factual aspects, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order taking cognizance and as such the quashing application is, hereby, dismissed.