IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.813 of 2007 SURESH CHANDRA MISHRA, son of Sri Ramayan Mishra resident of village Bhringichak, p.s. Kateya, Gopalganj …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUDHANSU TIWARI, SON OF SRI VYAS TIWARI 3. VAYAS TIWARI, SON OF NOT KNOWN 4. BHUNESHWAR TIWARI @ MALABABA, SON OF NOT KNOWN, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SABEYA P.S. KATEYA GOPALGANJ 5. FANISH TIWARI, SON OF SRI JAGDISH TIWARI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARNPATTI P.S. TAREYA SUJAN KUSINAGAR (U.P.) PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE SAWEYA P.S. KATEYA GOPALGANJ …Opposite parties For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey For Opposite parties : Mr. Ram Chandra Pd. Singh & : Mr. Satyendra Roy, Advocates For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 06. 13.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner who is the complainant of the case is aggrieved by the order dated 06.06.2007, passed by Judicial Magistrate,1st Class Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.130/07(Trial No.3104/07), whereby learned Magistrate has taken cognizance only under section 498A IPC against the husband and refused to take cognizance against other accused persons/members of the in-laws. Facts relevant for consideration of the case may be indicated. The petitioner being the father of the victim girl, lodged an FIR on 7.11.2004 alleging therein that her daughter was tortured for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and she was done to death in mysterious circumstances while she was in the matrimonial home. According to the FIR, the death had taken place within seven years - 2 - of marriage. The matter was investigated by the police. The petitioner having perceived the lackadaisical stand of the investigating authority preferred a criminal writ application being Cr. W.J.C. No.150 of 2006. The same was disposed of with certain observations by order dated 03.08.2006. It is to be noted here that a protest-cum-complaint was already filed by him in court on 3.12.2004 (Annexure-2). The police ultimately submitted final report on 19.11.2006 whereby the accuseds were not sent up for trial. According to the investigating agency, the case was a mistake of fact. The protest petition was treated as complaint whereafter the complainant and three enquiry witnesses were examined. The statements of the complainant and witnesses are on record as annexure-3 series. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is bad in law on account of its own reasonings. He refers to the provision contained in section 113A & 113B of the Evidence Act. It appears from the impugned order that learned Magistrate on perusal of materials brought on record has concluded that whether she was done to death for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry in the matrimonial home is doubtful. It is settled law that even on strong suspicion the matter can be tried. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the order impugned can be interfered with and set aside. So far as the exoneration of other accused(s) cited in the complaint is/are concerned, this Court for the present does not observe anything as the matter is now being remitted back to the - 3 - court concerned for passing a fresh order. It is expected that learned Magistrate will consider all relevant facts appearing from the records and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Consequently, the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to learned Magistrate for passing a fresh order. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )