IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10477 of 2008 1. RAM NARESH SINGH, SON OF LATE NARAIN SINGH, 2. UMESH SINGH, SON OF LATE NARAIN SINGH. BOTH RESIDNET OF VILLAGE – TEWSA, P.S. – PHENHARA, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPRAN. ………………. PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ……………………… OPP. PARTY. --------- 03/ 23.06.2010 This petition is directed against the order dated 12.02.2008 passed by the Addition Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Motihari in Sessions Tr. No. 882 of 2007 by which he has rejected the petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution case as alleged by the informant is that he had married his daughter with the eldest son of Ram Naresh Singh about seven years back and his son-in-law was in private service in Maharashtra and the father-in-law used to live at Motihari and his daughter who used to live at Tevasa in the ancestral house of her husband, has been done to death by poison by Anil Kumar, the Debar of the victim. It has further been alleged that the Debar was drunkard and used to assault his daughter under the influence of liquor and after assault poisoned her daughter to death and the dead body has also been disposed of. On the said petition FIR was lodged and charge sheet was submitted against the said Debar and other co-accused. After taking cognizance case was committed and it appears that the petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C was filed for discharge. However, by the impugned order the petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C was disposed of as there was material in the case diary and even the son of the 2 deceased has stated in his statement in case diary that the petitioner had taken part in disposing of the dead body of the deceased and hence, held that a prima facie case is made out under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against these petitioners for framing of the charge. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge against them is only for offence under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code but the main accused Anil Singh has been acquitted and hence the petition may be disposed of. However, there is averment as such in the entire petition regarding the acquittal. However, certified copy of the judgment has been placed at the time of hearing but without any affidavit and without any petition or averment in the petition itself. However, since the FIR has been lodged by the informant and the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet in which the son of the victim has been made a statement as well as on the statement of other witness the charge sheet was submitted the cognizance has been taken and the petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C considered and disposed of by the impugned order and I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order to interfere with. However, submission has been made to quash the criminal proceeding on the ground that since the main accused have been acquitted as during the trial the witness has not supported the prosecution case and hence the petitioner against whom there is only charge of Section 201 of the I.P.C is futile exercise. However, the law does not permit to quash the 3 proceeding merely on the ground of some of the accused persons having been acquitted when the petitioners have not faced the trial in a serious case for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Taking into consideration the entire facts I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence the persuasion by the petitioner that since some of the accused persons have been acquitted or even the main accused has been acquitted, the petition may be allowed quashing the entire proceeding in view of the order of acquittal passed against the co- accused, however, the submission made is not tenable and hence I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Kundan ( Gopal Prasad, J.)