Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.18110 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Bechan Yadav son of Ramdeo Yadav, resident of Village- Patepur, P.S. Bahadurpur ( Fekla O.P.), District- Darbhanga 2. Lal Yadav Son of Kailu Yadav, resident of Village- Baruyara, P.S. Bahadurpur( Fekla O.P.), District-Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Yogendra Yadav, Son of Late Teju Yadav, resident of Village- Fattepur, P.S. Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ----------------------- 5 09-07-2012 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.290 of 2008 arising out of Bahadurpur ( Fekala O.P.) P.S. Case No.25 of 2004, whereby the learned trial Judge has rejected the petition for discharge filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that he is not pressing the petition so far the petitioner no.2, namely, Lal Yadav is concerned. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as not pressed so far petitioner no.2 is concerned. A plea was taken by learned counsel for the petitioners that though in the F.I.R. seven persons were named as accused for offence under [STATUTE] . During investigation name of petitioner no.1 was not found and, as such, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18110 of 2010 (5) dt.09-07-2012 2 / 3 2 initially chargesheet was submitted against other accused persons. This petitioner no.1 was not forwarded. The other accused persons were put on trial and finally they were convicted vide S.T. No.316 of 2004. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent to conviction of other accused persons, a petition was filed by the informant before the Supdt. Of Police , wherein the informant with a view to implicate the petitioners disclosed that petitioner Bechan Yadav was also known as Baiju Yadav and thereafter a supplementary chargesheet was submitted, in which petitioner no.1 as well as petitioner no.2 was forwarded. He submits that paragraph 35 and 61 of the supplementary case diary make it clear that the petitioner no.1 was falsely implicated with the alias name as Bechan Yadav , whereas petitioner no.1 was not at all involved in the case. On the aforesaid ground, he has prayed for quashing of order dated 30.03.2010. I have perused the impugned order i.e. order dated 30.03.2010.The order indicates that both the petitioners were absconders and supplementary chargesheet was submitted. In the supplementary chargesheet, name of petitioner has come. One Certificate of concerned Mukhia was also brought on record to show that Bechan Yadav is also known as Baiju Yadav. From the impugned order, it is evident that this petitioner no.1 was known as Baiju Yadav also and, as such, by assigning a detailed reason, learned trial Judge has rejected the discharge petition filed on behalf of both the petitioners. After going through the impugned order as well as materials available on record, the Court is of the opinion that while rejecting the discharge petition, the learned trial Judge has committed no error. The Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18110 of 2010 (5) dt.09-07-2012 3 / 3 3 petition stands dismissed. Let Lower Court Record be sent to the court below forthwith. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, 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.