CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18934 OF 2000 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ------------- 1. Arun Kumar Singh , Son of Jag Narain Singh, resident of 22, Supervisory Flats, New Baradwari , P.S. Sakchi, District-Jamshedpur 2. Basukinath Singh, Son of Jag Narain Singh, resident of New Area, M.G. Road, P.S. Aurangabad, District-Aurangabad 3. Tarun Kumar Singh alias Tarun Kumar, Son of Jag Narain Singh, presently posted as Nautical Officer, C/O WILCO Shipmanagement, Suparna Building, Ras Behari Avenue, Calcutta 4. Binod Kumar Singh, Son of Jag Narain Singh, presently working as Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, Delhi, residing at R-102, Ratnagiri, Kaushambi, P.S. Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. 5. Jag Narain Singh, Son of Late Mahesh Narain Singh, resident of New Area, M.G. Road, P.S. Aurangabad, District-Aurangabad 6. Moti Raj Devi, Wife of Jag Narain Singh 7. Meera Singh, Wife of Basuki Nath Singh, Both residents of New Area, M.G. Road, P.S. Aurangabad, District-Aurangabad 8. Neelam Kumari alias Neelam Singh, wife of Arun Kumar Singh, resident of 22, Supervisory Flats, New Baradwari, P.S. Sakchi, District- Jamshedpur ---------------------- Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, Son of Late Nawlakh Singh, resident of Prashya Sadan, Riding Road, Sheikhpura, P.S. Shastri Nagar ,District-Patna ---------------------- Opp.Parties. -------------------- For the Petitioners: S/Sri Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate Akhileshwar Pd.Singh, Advocate For Opp.Party no.2: Sri Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Advocate For the State: Sri S.A. Ahmad, A.P.P. ---------------- P R E S E N T HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. It has been submitted by Sri Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of this petition, petitioner no.5 has died. 2 2. Eight petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 14.06.2000 passed by the learned 10th Addl. Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No.1195 of 1999. By the said order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge petition of the petitioners filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On earlier occasion also after the order of cognizance, petitioners had approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Cr.Misc.No.18700 of 1998 and Cr.Misc.No.19126 of 1998. At the time of admission of the said petitions, it was vehemently opposed by Opp. Party no.2 and finally, both the petitions were disposed of on 23.2.1999 by a Bench of this Court with an observation that if petition for discharge is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be considered by the court below and shall be disposed of expeditiously by passing a reasoned order. Accordingly, at the stage of charge, the petitioners in the light of the order of this Court dated 23.2.1999 passed in Cr.Misc.No.18700 of 1998 with Cr.Misc.No.19126 of 1998 filed a petition along with number of documents under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge keeping in view the scope of the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure rejected the same. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that even on the basis of strong suspicion charges can be framed, which is settled principle of law. 3. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, i.e. order dated 14.6.2000, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was finally admitted on 22.7.2004. While admitting, it was directed that the interim order dated 18.10.2000 shall continue till 3 disposal of the case. 4. In this case, Sri Chakradhari Sharan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 has filed a short affidavit indicating therein that in view of changed circumstances, the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 is not interested to pursue the case. Virtually, in paragraph-8 of the affidavit, it has been stated as follows: “8. That in view of the facts stated above the Opp.Party no.2 submits that necessary orders may be passed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by quashing the prosecution to secure the ends of justice.” 5. The said affidavit was filed on 22.7.2004. Even at the time of hearing Sri Chakradhari Sharan Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 has reiterated the stand taken in the affidavit filed on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 on 22.7.2004. 6. Sri Rana Pratap Singh, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that in the present case, no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna Court. It was further submitted that petitioner no.4, who was husband of deceased, namely, Pinky Singh, daughter of Opp.Party no.2, had taken each and every steps to get his wife cured. Petitioner No.4 was earlier posted at Kolkata. During that period some complication arose and thereafter the petitioner no.4 got his wife examined by eminent Doctors at Kolkata. Subsequently, after noticing the fact that his wife had developed Cancer, he firstly rushed to Batra Hospital, New Delhi. Thereafter, his wife was shifted to Tata Memorial Hospital at Bombay. Petitioner no.4 stayed with his wife at Bombay for a long time. She was given adequate treatment. However, the situation deteriorated and when 4 the doctor at Bombay finally suggested to take Pinky Singh back to his house as she was virtually on the death bed , she was carried to Delhi, so that before death, she could meet her son at Delhi. She finally took her last breath at Delhi. From Bombay to Delhi, mother-in-law and father-in-law of petitioner no.4 were accompanying the wife and petitioner no.4.Even after the death and at the time of cremation all the family members of both sides were present. The death finally occurred on 28.2.1998 at Delhi. After cremation, the complainant returned back. To the reasons best known to the complainant, after lapse of more then one month in a calculated manner, the present complaint was filed. 7. Sri Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated that the facts, which have been enumerated above, have been incorporated in the complaint petition itself. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted that in such a situation, it was difficult to comprehend how an offence under Section 304B was made out, but even then, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. When the case reached to the stage of charge a detailed petition for discharge was filed. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge in its order dated 14.6.2000 has incorporated each and every defence of the petitioners. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge has virtually accepted the contentions of the petitioners but only on the plea that since strongest suspicion was enough for framing of the charge, he has rejected the discharge petition. 8. Sri S.A. Ahmad learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State. It has already been indicated that Sri Chakradhari Sharnan Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 on the 5 strength of affidavit filed by the complainant, has submitted that the complainant is now not at all interested to pursue the case, rather the complainant has prayed to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 9. In view of the stand taken by Sri Chakrdhari Sharan Singh as well as in view of the materials available on record, the Court is satisfied that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and for quashing of the order dated 14.6.2000 , whereby discharge petition was rejected. On perusal of the order dated 14.6.2000 , it is evident that even the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had taken note of each and every fact , which was sufficient to allow the discharge petition, but to the reasons best known to him he has not exercised his own jurisdiction and left the matter for being decided by the superior court. On the basis of impugned order and entire materials, the order of rejection of discharge petition as well as entire criminal proceeding in the present case is liable to be set aside and, accordingly, both i.e. order dated 14.6.2000 in Sessions Trial No.1995 of 1999 as well as entire criminal proceeding is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 17th September,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)