Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 623 (JHR)

Kusum Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-04-24

H.C.MISHRA

body2012
Order 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant O.P. No.2 and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Dhanbad, in S.T. No.168 of 2010, whereby, the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., for discharge of these petitioners, has been rejected by the court below. 3. It appears that the case was instituted on the basis of the complaint petition filed by the opposite party No.2, who is the father of the deceased and there is allegation in the complaint petition against the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and when she became pregnant, the delivery was done at the house of the petitioners against the medical advice. Thereafter, her condition deteriorated and the deceased was sent to her parent's place, thereafter, she was admitted in nursing home, where she died on 20.06.2007. With these allegations, the complaint petition was filed against these petitioners in the court of learned C.J.M., Dhanbad on 19.09.2008. It appears that complainant supported his case in the court below in his statement recorded on solemn affirmation and the witnesses were also examined, who supported the case. Cognizance was also taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. It appears that in the court of Session the application for discharge was filed by the petitioners, which was rejected by the Court below by order dated 17.12.2010 holding that on the basis of materials brought on record, the prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioners were directed to appear for framing of charge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned order passed by the court below submitting that the complaint was filed very belatedly in as much as, the deceased died on 20.06.2007, whereas, the complaint petition was filed on 19.09.2008. Learned counsel submitted that in view of this delay of more than one year, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that in view of this delay of more than one year, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the facts and circumstances, no offence is made out under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below, in as much as, on the basis of allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on S.A and documents brought on record in the enquiry, the offence is clearly made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial of the case is in the advanced stage and only two witnesses have been left to be examined in the trial. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be interfered at this stage. 6. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the impugned Judgment, I find that the court below has given the finding on the basis of materials on record that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. This apart, I also find from the submission of learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the trial is at a very advanced stage and only two prosecution witnesses are left to be examined. This submission of learned counsel for the O.P. is not controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order dated 07.12.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Dhanbad in S.T. No.168 of 2010, worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction at this stage, particularly when the trial has reached at the advanced stage. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.