Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1725 (JHR)

Mini Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-10-04

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 17.07.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro whereby and where-under the prayer for setting aside the order dated 26.10.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro in C.P. Case No. 452 of 2012 by virtue of which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been rejected. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the husband and some of the accused had already been put to trial and while the husband was convicted and the other accused persons were acquitted from the charge levelled against them. Learned counsel submits that the informant had filed a separate application before this Court challenging the order of acquittal passed against the other accused persons barring the husband and also for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the husband. Learned counsel further submits that the husband of the deceased was imposed sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for life and so far as the other applications preferred by the informant is concerned, the same was dismissed by this Court. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are the distant relatives of the deceased and since some of the accused persons similarly situated have already been acquitted by the learned trial court which has been affirmed up to this Court the same treatment should be meted out to the petitioners. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. 5. It appears that the cognizance was taken in C.P. Case No. 452 of 2012 on 26.10.2012 against which the petitioners had preferred Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2013 in which the police had submitted final form in favour of the petitioners and on the protest petition having been filed by the complainant cognizance was taken and the petitioners were summoned to face trial. 6. The main plank of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with respect to the fact that some of the co-accused had already been acquitted by the learned trial court. 6. The main plank of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is with respect to the fact that some of the co-accused had already been acquitted by the learned trial court. However, the order under challenge is the order taking cognizance dated 26.10.2012 and the learned Magistrate had prima facie found existence of a case against the petitioners. At this stage, in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 this Court is not empowered to sift through the evidences to come to a conclusion regarding the culpability/non-culpability of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. The learned revisional court had appreciated the entire facets of the case and thereafter had affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance on 26.10.2012. 7. Since the order which has been passed by the learned courts below are in accordance with law, I am not inclined to interfere in the said order and consequently this application stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points at the appropriate stage. If the petitioners file their applications before the learned trial court the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.