Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.6762 of 2011 ====================================================== Nand Kishore Tiwari son of Banke Bihari Tiwari, resident of village- Mahamada, P.S.-Patahi, District-East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Ram Jatan Tiwari son of Late Chandradeo Tiwari 3. Kawal Devi wife of Ram Jatan Tiwari 2 & 3 are resident of village-Jamua, P.S.-Dhaka, District-East Champaran. 4. Shailesh Pandey son of not known to petitioner 5. Sanju Devi wife of Shailesh Pandey 4 & 5 are resident of village-Mashari, P.S.-Ramgarhwa, District-East Champaran, At present resident of Mohalla-Mathia Jirat, P.S.- Chataukni, District-East Champaran. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manindra Kishore Singh Meena Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J.K.Tondon For the State Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 24-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Informant and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 18.1.2011 passed in Cr. Revision No. 205/2010 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Motihari has set aside the order dated 2.6.2010 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari had taken cognizance against the petitioner for offences under [STATUTE] . In this case it appears that the husband has filed an F.I.R. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6762 of 2011 (2) dt.24-04-2012 2 / 4 2 stating that his wife was compelled to commit suicide on account of brutal assault perpetrated on her. On the basis of the complaint, an F.I.R. vide Chatauni P.S. Case No. 78 of 2009 was instituted. After the investigation final form was filed in favour of the accused persons. The court below issued notice to the informant whereupon the informant filed a protest petition but the Magistrate concerned without examining the protest petition on the basis of material that has been collected during investigation took cognizance vide order dated 2.6.2010 which was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Motihari in Cr. Rev. No. 205 of 2010 whereby the court below has held that the Magistrate concerned when the protest petition was filed ought to have made an enquiry on the protest petition and only then if the case was made out, the court of Magistrate could have taken cognizance. As the Magistrate concerned did not follow the aforesaid procedure and only on the basis of the case diary, he has taken cognizance which is an act of illegality. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no requirement that when the final form was submitted in favour of the accused person even though there, a protest petition was lying, the Magistrate concerned has liberty either to act upon protest petition or he can act upon on the basis of the evidence Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6762 of 2011 (2) dt.24-04-2012 3 / 4 3 collected during the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sessions Judge, Motihari has fallen in error while setting aside the order of cognizance on the ground of not proceeding on the protest petition. Learned counsel for the informant has supported the order that has been passed by the Sessions Judge, Motihari. He has submitted that when the petition was filed it was duty of the Magistrate court ought to have proceeded on the protest petition in stead of examining the material that has been collected during the investigation. Having considered the rival contention of both parties, this Court finds that learned Sessions Judge has committed an illegality in setting aide the order of learned Magistrate. There was a large number of cases especially Abhinandan Jha vs. Dinesh Mishra, 1968 SC 117 where the Court has held that even in the case where final form has been submitted the Magistrate can take cognizance on the material that has been collected during the investigation. The Magistrate has liberty to act upon the materials collected during investigation keeping a side the protest petition. In situation of acceptance final form, the court may proceed with protest petition. In my view, the argument that has been made by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6762 of 2011 (2) dt.24-04-2012 4 / 4 4 counsel for the petitioner is correct one. The Sessions Court has committed an error of law in setting aside the order of cognizance. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 18.1.2011 is quashed and this petition is allowed. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 306

Statute Text:
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Abetting the Commission of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.