N THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 653 of 2008 1. Ishwari Das 2. Sunaiti Devi … … Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand and another … … Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. J.S. Singh, Advocate For the State : A.P.P. ----- I.A. No. 6642 of 2013 5/12.09.2013 This interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 6642 of 2013 has been filed for seeking clarification of the order dated 3.11.2010, whereby the court did pass order for putting the case after four weeks. Further it was ordered that in the meantime, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners. At the same time, prayer has been made to admit the petitioners on bail Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in spite of the order being passed for not taking any coercive step, the petitioners were arrested on 26.8.2013 pursuant to the process issued on 16.3.2007. It does appear that on 3.11.2010 an order was passed for fixing the case after four weeks. In the meantime, an order was also passed to the effect that no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners. During these four weeks no order seems to have been passed in derogation of the order passed by this Court on 3.11.2010. However, it does appear that the process, which has been issued on 16.3.2007, was executed whereby the petitioners were arrested on 26.8.2013. It be stated that the period of interim order was never extended after expiry of four weeks. Under the circumstances, the prayer made in the interlocutory application is rejected. Cr. M. P. No. 653 of 2008 Heard the parties. This application is directed against the order dated 17.04.2007, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 304B/34 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that these two petitioners, who happened to be the father-in- law and mother-in-law, along with other accused persons have been made accused in a case registered under Sections 304B/34 of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that all the accused persons subjected the deceased to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and ultimately killed her, but that allegation gets falsified from the postmortem report, wherein it has been opined by the Doctor that the cause of death is on account of drowning in the water and further no ante-mortem injury has been found on the person of the deceased and thereby the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside. Upon it, learned counsel for the State submits that there appears to be allegation of subjection to torture on account of non- fulfillment of demand of dowry and that even if the case has been reported to be on account of drowning, it becomes a case of unnatural death and thereby all the ingredients, necessary to constitute offence under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code, are there and hence, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. In view of the submission made on behalf of the State that the allegations are there of subjection to cruelty upon the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and that according to the State, the case appears to be of unnatural death, I do not find any illegality with the order taking cognizance and hence, the order taking cognizance never warrants to be interfered with. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. However, the plea, which has been taken on behalf of the petitioners that the instant case never happens to be the case of dowry death, may always be available to the petitioners during trial. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Sandeep/AKT