IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.57386 of 2007 AWADH SINGH @ AWADHESH KUMAR S/O SRI NAWAL KISHORE SINGH @ NAWAL SINGH --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. TANIK SINGH SON OF LATE VISHUNDEO SINGH --- OPP. PARTIES ----------- 04 20.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties. Sole petitioner calls in question order dated 04.07.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Nawada in complaint case no. 170 of 2004 (Tanik Singh Vs. Sankar Singh & Ors.) By this order learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the materials brought on record in course of enquiry made under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) has come to the conclusion that there is/are materials on record which if unrebutted may warrant his conviction. In other words learned Court below has found that there is/are sufficient materials on record to frame charge(s) under Sections 341,323,365/34 of the Penal Code. A brief background of the case may first be indicated. On 14.03.2004 Awadh Singh @ Awadhesh Kumar (petitioner) filed an F.I.R. alleging therein that his sister was done to death in the matrimonial home in a mysterious circumstances for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. That gave rise to an F.I.R. being Ariari P.S. Case no. 31 of 2004. The aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged against the husband of the victim namely Pramod Kumar and other family members. Subsequent to the filing of the aforesaid case the present was lodged on 15.03.2004 alleging therein that Pramod Singh son of the complainant was forcibly kidnapped by his three brothers- in- law and father-in-law on 09.03.2004. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case has been lodged only with an intention to put undue pressure on the informant of the case. It is submitted that aforesaid Pramod Singh was evading arrest for about 04 years. The charge sheet was submitted showing him absconder in the year 2007 and recently on 20.03.2009 he was arrested and forwarded in the present case. It is the contention of the petitioner that allowing the present proceeding to continue would occasion failure of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) 2008(1) PLJR SC 51 (All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain & Anrs.) (ii) 1993 East Cr C 556(Pat) (Sri Chhote Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anrs.) Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submits that in course of enquiry all the witnesses examined in terms of Section 244 of the Code have supported the prosecution case. Learned trial Court in the order impugned has found that there is/are adequate evidence on record which would justify framing of charge(s). It is contended that considering the scope of jurisdiction invoked by learned Court below the impugned order merits no interference. Learned counsel further submits that cognizance in the present case was taken against all the four named accuseds. By the impugned order the application filed under Section 245 of the Code has been rejected and the Court has proceeded to frame charge(s) against all the accused persons. One of the accuseds is absconding and as such the charge(s) could not be framed. It is next submitted that only one of the accuseds has approached this Court challenging the sustainability of the order. The impugned order so far as the three of the rest 3 accuseds are concerned has attained finality. In the background of these facts emanating from record, it is submitted that the impugned order may not be interfered with. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that present case has been lodged just to create a defence cannot at this stage be brushed aside and/or accepted. True it is that complainant of the present case is accused in the F.I.R. lodged by the present informant relating to unnatural death of his sister in the matrimonial home. This Court is conscious of the jurisdiction invoked by learned trial Court. The Court is also conscious of the fact that the impugned order has attained finality so far as the three of the accused persons of the present case are concerned. In the background of these facts, this Court declines to interfere with the order impugned. The petitioner shall have adequate opportunity to raise/agitate all these issues at the relevant stage of the proceeding/trial. With this observation, the application is disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)