IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53260 of 2006 JANARDAN MAHARAJ Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR --------- For the petitioners : Mr. Rajani Kant Pathak, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Satis Kumar, Advocate. O R D E R The petitioner who is one of the F.I.R. named accused of Manjhi P.S. Case No. 118 of 2004 arising out of Complaint Case No. 84 of 2002 prays for the quashing the F.I.R. of the said case pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra. It has been stated that petition for grant of anticipatory bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 41011 of 2005 had been rejected by order dated 31.3.2006. It appears that one Asha Sharma, the complainant, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 84 of 2002 alleging that the marriage of her daughter Madhu Sharma with accused no. 1 Amarnath Maharaj has been solemnized in the year 2000 whereat Rs. 25000/- in cash 3 tolas of gold ornaments and 10 tolas of silver ornaments were given. It was further alleged that after the marriage the accused persons including the petitioner started putting pressure upon Madhu to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents which would be used in her unemployed husband establishing himself in some sort of business and as the demand was not fulfilled the relationship between them became strained. It is said that one day the complainant came to know through one Aziz Mian a - 2 - businessman that her daughter was burnt to death and her dead body had surreptitiously been thrown some where near Hajipur. It is further said that when the complainant went to village Madhurapur along with her husband, her brother and the aforesaid Azia Mian she first met the son-in-law Amarnath enroute who disclosed that Madhu had died due to burn injury. Later on, on reaching the matrimonial house of Madhu, whereas Amarnath on inquiry disclosed that Madhu had absconded somewhere else, the mother-in- law disclosed that she had disappeared after collecting the ornaments from the house. It is alleged that when the complainant started crying the accused persons offered Rs. 20,000/- and told them to leave the place silently otherwise they will face dire consequences. The complainant is said to have visited the police station who did not register the case. Then she came back to her village and on 8.1.2002 at about 11 A.M. accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 came to the house of the complainant and offered Rs. 25,000/- to her husband which the husband refused to accept and this resulted in exchange of hot words and attracted thereby when the local residents started assembling there the accused persons left the place. The complainant is said to have gone to Manjhi P.S. to lodge a case where the police suggested her to file a complaint petition in Court. Hence the complaint was filed on 10.1.2002. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transmitted the said complaint to the concerned Police Station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - 3 - It appears that later on it transpired in the mind of the complainant that the aforesaid complaint petition had been filed due to misunderstanding and mistake of fact and having realized her mistake the complainant on 11.2.2002 filed a petition in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Saran at Chapra, in the said complaint case stating therein that the case had been compromised between the parties and as such a prayer was made for permission to withdraw the case. She further stated in the said petition that in compliance of the order dated 10.1.2002 she had not filed the requisites in the Court . The said petition was directed to be kept on record. It further appears that thereafter more than 2 ½ years the said complaint case was referred to the police for instituting an F.I.R. and on 8.10.2004 Manjhi P.S. Case No. 118 of 2004 was registered for offences under sections 341, 323, 304(B)/34 I.P.C. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the police case had been registered after 2 ½ years after good relationship had been restored between the parties and the complainant herself had made a prayer to withdraw the case. It has also been submitted that the petitioner, the father of the husband of Madhu, since long is separated from his son and moreover on the day of occurrence he was at Patna working as an Accountant in Kamlesh Electrical Store, Chandni Chowk Market, Fraser Road, Patna, and residing in the house of Birendra Singh at Karbigahiya as a tenant. It further appears that an application was made to the - 4 - Superintendent of Police, Saran stating therein that it was absolutely on the ground of misunderstanding that she filed the complaint petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and having come to know the real facts, she had filed a petition on 11.2.2002 stating that she was not interested in contesting the case and was ready to withdraw the same. It is an admitted fact that the daughter of the complainant / informant was married to the son of the petitioner in the year 2000 and the victim girl had died of burn injury in the year 2002 i.e. within 7 years of the marriage. It further appears that the offences alleged are not compoundable and the case is under investigation. The ground raised is that due to misunderstanding and mistake of fact the complaint had been filed but there was also an allegation of offer of money to the complainant and her husband by the accused persons and the complainant visiting two police stations for registering the case. This requires a detailed investigation. Apparently the petition filed by the complainant for withdrawal of the complaint was after the complaint had been referred to the concerned P.S. under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and this only shows an attempt to close the investigation by dubious means which raises a great deal of suspicion. It goes without saying and law is well settled that once the Magistrate refers a complaint to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. he has no powers to pass any order thereupon and rightly the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of passing any orders on the later petition filed by the - 5 - complainant directed the petition to be kept on the record. The applications of the petitioner that he is the father in law and lives separately from his sons is also a matter of fact which is required to be investigated . The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma reported in 1991(2) PLJR 11(SC) with reference to the case of R.P.Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab : 1960(3) SCR 388 wherein the Apex Court circumscribed the jurisdiction of the High Courts to quash criminal proceedings in given case had held that appreciation of evidence is the function of the criminal courts and the High Court under the circumstances could not have assumed jurisdiction and put an end of the process of investigation and trial provided under the law. A bare reading of the F.I.R. shows that criminal offence is made out and the matter requires detailed investigation. In the facts and circumstances stated above and for the reasons recorded in the foregoing paragraphs there is no palpable reason to quash the F.I.R. as prayed for. The application being without merit is hereby dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated : The 26th of September, 2008 Sanjay Pd./A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)