Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14894 of 2011 ====================================================== Shanti Devi, w/O Sri Ganga Singh, resident of Village- Lawapur, P.S. Mahnar, District-Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ramhit Singh, son of Bhailal Singh, resident of Village- Nayagawn, P.S. Desri, District-Vaishali. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ----------------------- 4 07-11-2012 Heard Sri Mehendra Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Despite valid service of notice, the complainant/ Opp.Party no.2 has preferred not to appear. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 24.01.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge ( F.T.C.V), Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.291 of 2009 arising out of Complaint Case No. C-1/1251/03 corresponding to Mahnar P.S. Case No.68 of 1990. By the said order, the learned court below has allowed the petition filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the petitioner to face trial along with other accused persons. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14894 of 2011 (4) dt.07-11-2012 2 / 5 2 Short fact of the case is that initially as per instance of Opp.Party no.2 , an F.I.R. vide Mahnar P.S. Case No.68 of 1990 was registered for offence under [STATUTE] against members of in-laws family of the deceased. It was alleged that the daughter of the complainant was done to death. After conducting investigation of the case, the police submitted final report as untrue. At the same time, it was decided to recommend prosecution of the informant for the offence under [STATUTE] . However, a protest petition was filed by Opp.Party no.2 arraying four persons as accused. The petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the accused column of the complaint petition, but only wife of Ganga Singh was indicated. It was not disputed that the petitioner is the wife Ganga Singh. The protest petition was treated as complaint case vide Complaint Case No.1251 of 2003 and the learned Magistrate conducted enquiry. During enquiry the accusation against accused No.4 i.e. the petitioner was not substantiated and, as such, her case was dropped and the learned Magistrate took cognizance against remaining three accused persons. After the case was committed and charges were framed, during trial the witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the prosecution, also disclosed regarding involvement Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14894 of 2011 (4) dt.07-11-2012 3 / 5 3 of the petitioner and, as such, a petition was filed by the prosecution for summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which has been allowed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C. V) and is under challenge in the present petition. Sri Mahendra Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner besides raising many points has argued that since the petitioner was already shown as accused in protest-cum- complaint petition and after enquiry her case was dropped, the learned Sessions Judge was not authorized to summon the petitioner, while exercising power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits that only those persons can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., who was not accused in the present case. The petitioner was shown as accused in the protest-cum-complaint petition and on enquiry, no prima facie case was found against her and, as such, she will be deemed to be as accused prior to initiation of the trial and, as such, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., no order was required to be passed. For just decision in the matter, Section-319 Cr.P.C. is quoted herein below: 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence—(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14894 of 2011 (4) dt.07-11-2012 4 / 5 4 any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial or, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section(1) then— (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re- heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause(a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” On perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that since the petitioner was already an accused in complaint case and on enquiry her case was dropped, the learned Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order, has committed serious error, which warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.V), Vaishali at Hajipur in Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14894 of 2011 (4) dt.07-11-2012 5 / 5 5 Sessions Trial No.291 of 2009 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.