Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10363 of 2012 (3) dt.30-04-2012 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.10363 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Umer Ali S/O Late Fazoouddin 2. Nuresh Khatoon W/O Umer Ali 3. Shahnaj Begun W/O Anusoor @ Lachhu 4. Mansur Alam S/O Hazrat Ali All resident of Village - Raja Pakar Markaribari, P.S. Barari, P.O. Kantnagar, District - Katihar .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Md. Ishrail S/O Md. Isha R/O Village - Nawadih, P.S. Barari, District - Katihar .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance: For the petitioners : Mr. Suresh Pd. Sah @ Barnwal, Advocate For the opposite party no.2 Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr Ahmad Ali, A. P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 3 30-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 on the point of admission and in my view, this petition can be disposed off at the admission stage itself. Petitioners being in-laws of the deceased were made accused in Barari P.S. case no. 154/2011 registered under [STATUTE] but after investigation police submitted final form in respect of the petitioners showing accusation untrue against them but submitted charge sheet against the rest accused for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . T The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate differed with the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10363 of 2012 (3) dt.30-04-2012 2 2 findings of the police and took cognizance for the offence against the petitioners and other accused persons. L Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in course of investigation, it came to light that petitioners were residing separately from the husband of the deceased as well as other accused persons of this case and in course of investigation, the police did not find any cogent evidence to show involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime and after due investigation, police submitted final form showing accusation untrue in respect of petitioners but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, without giving any reason for differing with the findings of the police, took cognizance for the offence against the petitioners also which is not in accordance with law. n On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 supported the impugned order submitting that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has got ample power to differ with the findings of the police and it is not necessary for cognizance taking court to give reason at the time of taking cognizance. Admittedly, petitioner no.1 is father-in law, petitioner no.2 is mother-in law, petitioner no.3 is Gotani and petitioner no.4 is cousin father-in law of the deceased and they are named in the first information report. No doubt, police after investigation submitted final form showing accusation untrue in respect of the petitioners whereas submitted charge sheet against rest accused persons including Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10363 of 2012 (3) dt.30-04-2012 3 3 husband of the deceased. It is also admitted position that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not agree with the findings of the police and took the cognizance differing with the findings of the police passing impugned order dated 27.1.2012 which is under challenge before this court. Admittedly, cognizance for the offence under [STATUTE] has been taken vide impugned order dated 27.1.2012 and under [STATUTE] , there is presumption against the relatives of the husband of the deceased and admittedly, petitioners are relatives of the husband of the deceased. So far as factum of separation of the petitioners from husband of the deceased is concerned, it is not a proper stage to consider the aforesaid fact and the petitioners may raise the aforesaid point at the appropriate stage before the learned trial court. In view of the aforesaid discussions as well as submissions, this petition stands disposed off on admission stage itself with liberty to the petitioners to raise their point at the appropriate stage before the learned trial court and if they do so, learned trial court shall consider their point without being prejudiced by this order. In the above stated manner, this petition stands disposed off. Shahid/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 304B

Statute Text:
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. Dowry death. Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.