Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 643 (JHR)

Umesh Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2014-06-16

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.9.2012 passed by Sri A.K. Dubey, learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 498-A, 340-B, 328 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 498-A, 340-B, 328 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 35 of 2012. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased and there is allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, to have subjected the deceased to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and to have committed her dowry death by poisoning. The marriage had taken place about six years ago. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after investigation of the case, the police submitted charge sheet only under Section 306 IPC, but on the basis of protest petition, the Court below has taken cognizance under Sections 498-A, 340-B, 328 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. It is also pointed out that investigation against other co-accused persons was continued. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that since after investigation the police has submitted charge sheet only under Section 306 IPC, the impugned order taking cognizance for other offences is absolutely illegal and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that in view of the allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and on the basis of the materials collected during investigation, the offence is clearly made out against the petitioner under Sections 498-A, 340-B, 328 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned order, I find that the Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner on the basis of the materials on record. 6. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the impugned order, I find that the Court below has taken cognizance against the petitioner on the basis of the materials on record. Even though the police has submitted charge sheet against the petitioner only under Section 306 IPC, and even if it is presumed that the deceased had committed suicide, in the facts of this case and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner, offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code are clearly made out against the petitioner, inasmuch, as it is clearly a case of unnatural death of the deceased within seven years of marriage and there is allegation against the accused persons to have subjected the deceased to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. 7. In the facts of this case, I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. There is no merit in this application, which is accordingly, dismissed.