IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55933 of 2007 PREM KUMARI DEBI @ PREM KUMARI DEVI & ANR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 05.5.2008. Heard. According to the petitioners, the father of the deceased was present when the body of the deceased was done away with by burning the same. Despite that the father of the deceased lodged a first information report and thereby charged the members of the family of the in-laws of the deceased for doing away the deceased. Soon thereafter the father of the deceased contended before the court that he was misled originally and, accordingly, lodged the first information report and since now he is convinced that the death was a natural death, he is withdrawing the insinuations contained in the first information report as regards the death of the deceased. Petitioners think that a criminal proceeding is an adversarial proceeding. They further think that the information given in the first information report, if is withdrawn, the case against the accused will disappear. In criminal jurisprudence there is no concept of adversarial - 2 - proceeding. It is a gauntlet of the society against the crime committed against the society and, accordingly, all criminal proceedings are by the society, i.e. the State against the accused, who is alleged to have committed the offence. First information report is a mere launch pad for commencing investigation. In the investigation, if it transpires that a punishable crime has been committed against the society, the alleged offender would be booked and he would after conclusion of trial, be punished. In the instant case, the deceased died untimely. It may be a natural death or may not be so. In the event it is proved that the death is an untimely death, every member of the family where the deceased used to reside would be required to prove that the death was a natural death. Up to now, except some statements by some interested persons, there is nothing on record which would suggest that the death was a natural death. A person dying untimely, but not taken to the Doctor and, accordingly, the death having not been certified by the Doctor, may amount to forcing the person to death. Petitioner No. 2 contends that she is the married - 3 - sister-in-law of the deceased and resides apart. Nowhere it has been stated in the petition that Petitioner No. 2 either at the time of death or at the time of cremation of the dead body was not present in the house of in-laws of the deceased. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. dk ( Barin Ghosh, J. )