ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9th August, 2016, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Cr. Revision No. 30 of 2015, by which the application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 against the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code has been set aside and it has been prima facie held that a case under section 304B of IPC is made out against charge-sheeted accused-Samim Ansari as well as one Harun Ansari, in favour of whom, final form has been submitted. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate had taken cognizance under section 306 of IPC whereas the learned revisional court had committed an error of law in holding that prima facie case is made out under section 304 B of IPC against Samim Ansari and Harun Ansari. It has further been submitted that the learned Magistrate had the power to differ with the final form, which was submitted in favour of Harun Ansari by assigning sufficient reasons. Learned counsel submits that the order of remand itself gets frustrated in view of the finding, which has been given by the learned revisional court with respect to making out an offence under section 304-B of IPC. It has thus been submitted that the impugned order dated 9th August, 2016 being not in accordance with law deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. P.P.N. Rai, learned senior counsel for O.P. No. 2, has submitted that after the final form was submitted in favour of Harun Ansari, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to have issued notice to the opposite party no. 2 and on consideration of the protest petition, if filed, necessary orders could have been passed by the learned Magistrate. It has been submitted that a case under section 304-B of IPC is made out against the petitioner, which facts have properly been appreciated by the learned revisional court before remanding the matter to the learned Magistrate for a fresh consideration with respect to order taking cognizance. 5. It appears that initially an FIR being Jamua P.S. Case No. 286 of 2014 was instituted under section 304 (B)/34 of IPC against two named accused persons being Samim Ansari and Harun Ansari. 5. It appears that initially an FIR being Jamua P.S. Case No. 286 of 2014 was instituted under section 304 (B)/34 of IPC against two named accused persons being Samim Ansari and Harun Ansari. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Samim Ansari whereas the case was not found to be true against accused Harun Ansari and investigation was going on against Kolia Bibi. It appears that on 16.12.2014, cognizance was taken under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite party no. 2 had preferred a revision having been aggrieved by the fact that he was not issued notice prior to submitting final form or for that matter the case having been made out under section 304 B, cognizance was only taken under section 306 of IPC. On such application having been filed, by order dated 9.8.2016, learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Cr. Revision No. 30 of 2015 was pleased to remand the case back to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order considering the materials available on record. It appears from the impugned order dated 9.8.2016 that a fleeting reference has been made with respect to statement of the informant and some of the witnesses which led the revisional court to come to a conclusion that a prima facie case is made out under section 304 B of IPC against the petitioners. The finding, which has been given by the learned revisional court, is against the settled principles of law as if at all an error had been committed by the learned Magistrate, the learned court below could have remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate giving sufficient reasons for doing so with a direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The learned Revisional Court has virtually usurped the jurisdiction vested to the learned Magistrate by taking cognizance under section 304-B of IPC without there being any materials, which could suggest that petitioners have committed an offence under sections 304-B and 306 of IPC. So far as the order, which has been passed by the learned Magistrate on 16.12.2014 is concerned, it appears that he straightaway took cognizance against petitioner no. 1 without issuing notice to the informant. So far as the order, which has been passed by the learned Magistrate on 16.12.2014 is concerned, it appears that he straightaway took cognizance against petitioner no. 1 without issuing notice to the informant. Since final form was submitted against Harun Ansari, the entire facets of the case would thus reveal that the procedure, which was needed to be followed, have neither been properly appreciated by the learned Magistrate nor by the revisional court. The order of the learned revisional court, in which it has been held that prima face case under section 304-B of IPC is made out against the petitioners, virtually has prejudiced the mind of the learned Magistrate and in spite of remanding the matter back to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law, the findings of the learned Sessions Judge would have been an obstacle to the learned Magistrate to come to an independent conclusion based on the materials available on record. In such circumstances, therefore, while setting aside the order dated 9.8.2016, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-V, Giridih in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2015, the matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order on the charge-sheet/final form submitted with respect to petitioner no. 1 and other accused persons having not been sent up for trial, and he is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The learned Magistrate is further directed not to be weighed by the order, which has been passed by the learned revisional court, which has been set aside by this Court with respect to the materials showing prima facie case under section 304-B of IPC against the petitioners. 6. This application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observation and directions. Application disposed of.