IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39067 of 2007 SIDH NATH PRASAD & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the Petitioners: M/s. Sachidanand Choudhary and Lavekush Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. L.K. Yadav, Advocate. ………. O R D E R All the eight persons arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.362(C) of 2006 under Sections 379, 420, 504 I.P.C. have preferred this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 22.5.2007 passed therein by Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danapur, whereby he has rejected their petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and has directed for framing of charges against them. It appears that one Dharmendra Prasad, impleaded as O.P. No.2 herein, filed the aforesaid complaint, inter alia, stating that his marriage with deceased Soni Kumari, the daughter of petitioner no.1, Sidh Nath Prasad was solemnized in the year 2002 and a daughter and a son were born out of the wedlock. It is alleged that Soni Kumari was suffering from the dreaded ailment of tuberculosis(T.B.) for which he was getting her treated by a doctor at Danapur but after some time petitioner no.1 took her to her naiher and allegedly demanded one lac rupees from him for treatment which naturally was refused by the complainant. It is further alleged that with the sole purpose of extracting money from the complainant petitioner no.1 got filed a case under Section 498(A) I.P.C. being Complaint Case No.1290(C) - 2 - of 2005 which eventually was compromised after payment of Rs.15000/- and Soni Devi was taken to her sasural. It is further alleged that on the pressure of petitioner no.1, a partition of property was effected between the complainant, his parents and brothers on 20.3.2006 and ever since they are living separately. It was further alleged that on the night of 15.4.2005, his wife, Soni Devi, caught fire while cooking and she was brought to Danapur Sadar Hospital wherefrom she was referred to the P.M.C.H. where she gave her statement before the Pirbahore police. It is said that on 16.4.2006 the accused persons took Soni Devi to the Agamkuan Hospital for treatment and the allegation is that all the accused persons took a total of Rs.15000/- in cash and all ornaments worth Rs.73000/- from time to time on the plea of spending the same on her treatment and instead of spending the same over her treatment they misappropriated the said amount and as a consequence thereof Soni Devi died. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that they are innocent, had committed no offence and had been falsely implicated in the present case on concocted assertions primarily with a view to save the skin of his parents and other family members all of whom are accused in a case under Section 304(B) I.P.C. for causing the death of the daughter of petitioner nos.1 and 2. From perusal of the instant complaint petition, it appears that there had been several cases between the parties, one of them being Danapur P.S. Case No.235 of 2006 under Section 304(B) I.P.C. wherein Soni Devi gave her statement before the Agamkuan Police at Ishwar Dayal Hospital, Kumhrar, on 24.4.2006 to the effect that her father-in-law, mother-in-law - 3 - and dewar had set her on fire on 15.4.2006. Curiously the husband had not been made a party. The victim Soni Devi died of burn injury on 2.5.2006. There is much force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that from the nature of allegation made by the prosecution it was crystal clear that no prudent man would believe that any person will extract money from his son-in-law at the cost of the life of his daughter when getting her treated for her ailment and the father would leave his daughter to die and would not spend money over her treatment. The cause of death of Soni Devi according to her dying declaration may be correct but that is the subject matter of Danapur P.S. Case No.235 of 2006 and the same cannot be juxtaposed into the instant case and has to be examined separately. For the reasons stated above and the improbability of the prosecution case, I am inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and allow this application. The impugned order taking cognizance is accordingly quashed hereby. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated: The 4th of July, 2008. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.