Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.28975 of 2010 ====================================================== Champa Devi, wife of late Sipahi Sah, resident of village-Chaugari, P.S. Murar, District-Buxar (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 04. 16-05-2012 Heard Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ramchandra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2010 passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2009 arising from Bihia P.S. Case No. 123 of 2007 registered for offences punishable under [STATUTE] and Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the prayer made on behalf of the informant- petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the accused persons mentioned in the First Information Report for facing trial. Perusal of the order impugned passed by the learned trial court manifest that the prayer of the petitioner had not been Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28975 of 2010 (4) dt.16-05-2012 2 entertained at that stage since the Investigating Officer of the case had not been examined. It is not in dispute rather admitted by the parties that the Investigating Officer has since been examined as prosecution witness no. 9 and the evidence is placed at Annexure-C series to the affidavit filed on behalf of the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 9. Although this Court is not prima facie satisfied as to the reason assigned by the trial court for not entertaining the petition filed on behalf of the informant-petitioner simply because the Investigating Officer had not been examined. However, as the admitted position is that the Investigating Officer has since been examined in the trial, there is now no such impediment remaining and in which view of the matter the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial court and which may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. With the observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, 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.