IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17861 of 2009 1. Murari Pandey @ Sachidanand Pandey, son of Suryadeo Pandey. 2. Seeta Devi, wife of Murari Pandey. Both resident of Village- Nawada Panday Tola, P.S. Kotwa, District- East Champaran. ……………..Petitioners. Versus The State of Bihar ……………………….Opposite Party. For the petitioners :- Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 30.11.2010. Heard. This criminal miscellaneous petition is filed for quashing the order of taking cognizance dated 03. 04. 2003, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, in Kotwa P.S. Case No. 86 of 2002. The petitioners are father-in-law and mother- in-law of the deceased. The prosecution case is that on 24. 10. 2002, the informant learnt that his daughter was done to death and her dead body has been thrown in a well. On received of such information, the informant along with eight persons proceeded to sasural of her daughter and found that dead body of his daughter way lying in the road near the well and Police started with the investigation. It has further been alleged that marriage of his daughter was solemnised about one and half years back. It is also alleged that after marriage, the husband of the deceased was started demand of a new motorcycle and gold chain and 2 the husband of the deceased started torture and subjected to cruelty to his daughter. It has further been alleged father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased also used to abuse the informant. It is alleged that whenever the informant went to sasural of his daughter learnt about subjecting cruelty and even fifteen days prior to the occurrence also she was subjected to cruelty. It is also alleged that his daughter was murdered but accused persons were making out a case for suicide. However, after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken. From perusal of the record, it appears that order dated 03. 04. 2003 cognizance was taken under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against Niranjan Pandey @ Tuna Pandey, Murari Pandey @ Sachidanand Pandey and Seeta Pandey, the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased after charge sheet was submitted. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that allegation has been levelled only against Niranjan Pandey not against other petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners did not remain absconder and had no knowledge of cognizance after Final Form has been filed. However, it has been contended that charges were framed after cognizance 3 taken against these petitioners. Learned counsel for the opposite party however, contended that since the death of the deceased at her sasural and there is allegation of subjected to cruelty and torture, hence, these facts prima facie offence is made out and no illegality or irregularity in the order of taking cognizance against these petitioners. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that deceased died at her sasural and her dead body was found in a well and there is allegation of demand of dowry and subjected to cruelty and torture with regard to marriage solemnised only one and half years back already makes out a case for offence under Sections 302 and 201 and even on strong suspicion a cognizance can be taken and charge be framed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit to interfere with the order of taking cognizance and charges have been framed against these petitioners who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition and the petition is accordingly, dismissed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.) 4