IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45969 of 2006 VEENA DEVI & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 13.4.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Despite notice no one appears on behalf of Opposite party no.2. The petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 1.9.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda in Ashthawan P.S. Case No.114 of 2006 whereby cognizance of offence under sections 498A, 304B/34 of the Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. Petitioner no.1 Veena Devi is Gotni of the deceased and petitioner no.2 Neelam Kumari is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the deceased father as well as her mother in their statement recorded in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the case diary had stated that their daughter only complained that her husband used to drink heavily and did not do any work. They did not make any complaint of any torture or demand of dowry. He further submits one Chandeshwar Yadav and other witnesses whose statements are recorded in paras 10, 12 and 13 of the case diary have stated that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The post mortem report also supports the fact that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to hanging. The Investigating Officer in course of spot inspection has also found stool, torn off Saree in the room of the deceased and as such the police 2 KHAN submitted final form in favour of the petitioners. Learned State counsel submits that the informant in his subsequent statement recorded in paragraph 6 of the case diary had supported the prosecution case. He further submits that it would appear from perusal of the F.I.R. that the deceased telephonically informed the informant that the accused persons tortured her. It would appears from the materials on record that petitioner no.1 is the Gotni of the deceased and even the deceased’s father and mother have not pointed towards her involvement in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the married Gotni could be on similar position to that of the deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioners. This application is accordingly dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioners to take all these points at the time of framing of charge. (S.P.Singh,J)