Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (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 Cri. 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 304-B 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.;