ORDER Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including order taking cognizance dated 22.5.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 416 of 2003. 2. Facts leading to the filing of this application are that this application has been filed to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court seeking protection of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, which is being violated by holding trial of the petitioner in the matter of Dhanbad PS Case No. 183 of 2003 dated 22.3.2003 registered under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 793 of 2003. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the legal right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is being violated in the case of the petitioner, as this petitioner is an accused in Sessions Trial No. 416 of 2003 and facing trial under Section 304(B), IPC on the basis of written report of the maternal uncle of the deceased, several persons including this petitioner were made accused and the IO after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against this petitioner only but did not sent up the other persons for trial. On the basis of submission of charge-sheet, the learned Court below also took cognizance against this petitioner and discharged the other remaining persons against whom final form was submitted, and they were not sent up for trial. Charges were framed and trial proceeded. After lodging of the FIR and till now four times bail petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner and all the times bail petition was rejected some time with observation to conclude the trial within six months, and when trial was not concluded within six months then again bail petition was filed after expiry of the period of six months and that time also the bail petition was dismissed with similar observation to conclude that trial within six months. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised three points in this connection. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised three points in this connection. His first contention was that the petitioner, as per the FIR, was not only responsible for the so called alleged occurrence but the other persons were also equally responsible along with this petitioner and when materials, against them, are the same then the right of this petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution gets infringed in view of the fact that there is no similarly in the submission of charge-sheet because when there are materials similar in nature against all the accused persons including this petitioner, then charge- sheet should have been submitted against all of them and when they have been discharged, there being similar materials against them, then this petitioner should also be discharged and for that cognizance should be quashed and if not so, those persons, maintaining equality before law, should also be summoned to face trial. His next point of argument was that under Section 304(B), there are some conditions under which a person can be prosecuted under Section 304(B). The conditions are that the deceased should have been legally wedded wife of the accused husband and his husbands near relative and that Marriage must have been solemnized within seven years from the date of occurrence and there was a demand of dowry, for which cruelty was perpetrated upon the deceased wife and further that death must have occurred in circumstance other than normal meaning thereby must have occurred in abnormal circumstance and when these conditions are fulfilled then only a person can be prosecuted under Section 304(B). His further point of argument was that as per materials in this case all those conditions stand fulfilled not against this petitioner but other accused persons also, who have been exonerated from facing trial as similar nature of allegations are against all the accused persons and, therefore, this petitioner should either be discharged or if he is facing trial, then other accused persons, who have been discharged or who have been exonerated from facing trial, should also be summoned to face trial. The other accused persons are father mother and elder brother of the petitioner and therefore, he wants that his father, mother and elder brother should also be prosecuted along with him or since they have been discharged, he should also be discharged from the case after setting aside the cognizance order etc. The other accused persons are father mother and elder brother of the petitioner and therefore, he wants that his father, mother and elder brother should also be prosecuted along with him or since they have been discharged, he should also be discharged from the case after setting aside the cognizance order etc. His next argument was that even in course of trial, evidence to that effect has come against the petitioner and other persons, who have been discharged or who have not been sent up for trial and in this connection he referred to several paragraphs of the evidence of several witnesses to make home the point that there is consistent evidence against other persons also but they have not been made accused and, therefore, since on similar set of facts or evidence other co-accused have not been sent up for trial, then a discrimination is being made against this petitioner that on similar set of facts and evidence this petitioner is being prosecuted and, therefore, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and he should also be discharged because on the same set or similar materials other persons have not been sent up for trial. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State sought time for filing counter affidavit, but keeping in view the fact that trial is at the fag end of disposal, hence no time was allowed to the State counsel for filing counter affidavit. 6. Admitted fact is that a case, on the basis of written report of maternal uncle of deceased Rubi Jha, Dhanbad PS Case No. 183 of 2003 dated 22.3.2003 was registered under Sections 304-B/34, IPC and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner only and IO did not find sufficient materials for submitting charge-sheet against other persons and, therefore, submitted charge-sheet against him and did not send other persons for trial. Thereafter, learned CJM also did not take cognizance against other persons and took cognizance against the petitioner only. The petitioner ought to have filed a petition before the learned Court of CJM or in the Sessions Court that other accused persons are also responsible for death of Rubi Jha along with him, they should also be summoned to face trial. Thereafter, learned CJM also did not take cognizance against other persons and took cognizance against the petitioner only. The petitioner ought to have filed a petition before the learned Court of CJM or in the Sessions Court that other accused persons are also responsible for death of Rubi Jha along with him, they should also be summoned to face trial. On the other hand, in course of trial witnesses were examined and on the basis of evidence of witnesses, prosecution did not think it proper to file a petition under Section 319, Cr PC for summoning them or even Court did not summon them under Section 319, Cr PC and, therefore that was the stage, if sufficient materials were there, they could have been summoned to face trial but neither the informant nor the APP, who was in seisin of the case nor the Court considered it proper to file a petition or to summon other persons to face trial in the case. 7. Sole question here is that the petitioner was the husband of Rubi Jha and it was his moral duty to protect her dignity etc. from other persons, when according to him, such occasion arose for demand of dowry and due to non- fulfilment of demand of dowry, Commission of torture on her and subsequently causing her death in abnormal circumstance was done but he did not protect her. As the petitioner was her husband, he should have protected her from the misdeeds of others but curiously enough, he himself was involved in the commission of alleged torture, demand of dowry, causing of her death etc. and, therefore, he is solely responsible for the same and if the trial Court finds materials against him, in course of trial, the learned Court below is at liberty to pass any kind of order and the prerogative of the prosecution cannot be made subject matter and cannot be directed to proceed against others even though there is no material against them. The case is at the fag end of disposal, as per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, and argument is going on and further from the submissions made . above, this writ is not covered under Article 14 of the Constitution and there being no merit is accordingly dismissed.