Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1296 (PAT)

Sanjula Mishra v. State of Bihar

2013-11-14

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

body2013
ORDER Heard. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 1254 (C) of 2008 by the learned S.D.J.M., Danapur, whereby the petition filed on behalf of the accused petitioners under Section 245 Cr. P.C. for their discharge has been rejected. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner no.1 and 2 happen to be mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant -Opposite Party No.2. The petitioner No.3 happens to be the husband of the complainant –Opposite Party no.2. In the petition of complaint vide Annexure-1 filed by the opposite Party no. 2, there is allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. Five lacs in cash and a car, and on account of non-fulfillment of aforesaid demand, there is specific allegation of torture and cruelty against the petitioners, committed against the complainant- Opposite Party no.2. During the course of enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C., witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant and they supported the prosecution case, as a result therefore, by an order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Danapur, cognizance was taken under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and summons was issued to the accused persons for facing trial. 4. It is admitted case of the petitioners that, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order taking cognizance, they preferred Cr. Misc. No. 42881 of 2009 before this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. with a prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance. The matter was heard at length by a Bench of this Court. By an order dated 26.09.2012 (Annexure-7) passed in aforesaid Cr. Misc. No. 42881 of 2009, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners was rejected by a reasoned and speaking order. This Court refused to interfere with the order taking cognizance. However, a liberty was granted to the petitioners to raise the issues at an appropriate stage. The aforesaid order dated 26.09.2012 passed by a Bench of this Court has attained its finality. Now, for the purpose of framing charge, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant in terms of Section 244 Cr. P.C. All the witnesses are said to have supported the prosecution version. At that stage the petitioners filed a petition under Section 245 Cr. P. C. for their discharge, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 05.04.2013. 5. P.C. All the witnesses are said to have supported the prosecution version. At that stage the petitioners filed a petition under Section 245 Cr. P. C. for their discharge, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 05.04.2013. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued the matter at great length and has repeated the points, which were raised earlier while assailing the order taking cognizance. It may not be out of place to mention here that the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction was also raised earlier on behalf of the petitioners and that was considered by this Court and the question raised on behalf of the petitioners was rejected by the aforesaid order dated 26.09.2012 (Annexure-7). Main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner no.3 has filed a matrimonial suit for restitution of conjugal right, which is still pending and, therefore, according to him, the prayer for discharge ought to have been allowed by the learned court below. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has strongly opposed the prayer and has submitted that in view of admitted relationship and in view of the materials collected during the course of enquiry, as also at the stage of framing charge, a case under Section 498A IPC is made out. Therefore, according to him, there is absolutely no legal infirmity warranting any interference by this Court at this stage in the impugned order refusing the prayer for discharge made on behalf of the petitioners. 7. Law has been well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal [ AIR 1979 SC 366 = 1979 Cr. L. J. 154]. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court if the materials produced before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused persons, the court will be fully justified in framing charge and proceeding with the trial. Probable defence of an accused cannot be looked into at this stage. The defence of an accused is required to be considered and tested at the stage of trial. Admittedly, that stage is yet to reach. Learned trial court has also given good and cogent reasons, and has noted about the sufficiency of the materials for framing charge against the petitioners. 8. The defence of an accused is required to be considered and tested at the stage of trial. Admittedly, that stage is yet to reach. Learned trial court has also given good and cogent reasons, and has noted about the sufficiency of the materials for framing charge against the petitioners. 8. For the reason recorded above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. 9. In the result, the application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. The order of stay passed on 07.08.2013 by a Bench of this Court stands vacated.