IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14853 of 2008 1. Jamuni Devi, wife of Late Ram Chandra Prasad. 2. Braj Nandan Prasad, son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad. 3. Deepak Prasad @ Deepak Kumar, son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad. 4. Bidya Nand Prasad, son of Late Ram Chandra Mahto. All resident of village-Janaro, P.S. Silao, District-Nalanda. 5. Suresh Prasad alias Suresh Mahato, son of Late Namdhari Prasad @ Namdhari Mahto. Resident of Bobhnima, P.S. Nalanda, District-Nalanda. 6. Laxminiya Devi, daughter of Suresh Prasad. 7. Suresh Prasad, son of Ramji Prasad. Both resident of Dumari, P.S. Silao, District-Nalanda. …………………………………………………Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Ram Sharan Prasad @ Ram Sloran Mahto, son of Late Shree Mahto, resident of Jogi Bigha, P.S. Nagar Nausa (Chandi), District-Nalanda. ………………………………………….Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, A.P.P. ---------------------------------- O R D E R 5. 21.10.2011. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to quash the order dated 4.8.2006, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif (Nalanda) in Silao P.S. Case No.302 of 2003, G.R. No.1943 of 2003, 2 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has taken the cognizance of the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused- petitioners. 2. In brief, the fact, relating to this application, is that on the basis of the written report of the informant, Ram Sharan Prasad, Silao P.S. Case No.302 of 2003 was instituted on 5.12.2003 under Sections 498-A and 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused- petitioners. It has been alleged by the informant, in his written statement, that he had performed the marriage of his daughter, Niru Devi, in the year 1995 with the accused-petitioner no.4, Bidya Nand Prasad, according to Hindu Custom. After passing over some days, his daughter was being tortured for demand of colour television and cash Rs.25000/- since 1995 to October, 2000. In the month of October, 2000, Niru Devi, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.12600 of 2000, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda against her husband and in-laws. After cognizance in that case, the case was 3 compromised at the instance of her in-laws and she went to her sasural. Thereafter, mother-in-law, Jamuni Devi, dewar, Deepak Prasad, bhaisur, Brajnandan Prasad and Nandosi, Suresh Prasad, again started torturing his daughter. In the meantime, his daughter gave birth to a female child, who was killed after one month. On receiving information, when he reached at the sasural of his daughter, he was asked by in-laws of his daughter to give colour television and cash Rs.25,000/-. The informant has further alleged that the husband of his daughter performed the remarriage and there is child to that second wife. While he tried to pacify the matter, but after re-marriage, life of his daughter become hell. On 5.12.2003, in the morning, two persons came from the sasural of his daughter, Niru Devi, and informed him about her death saying that her dead body is at the police station. Then, he reached at the police station and saw the injuries on the dead body of his daughter and blood was also oozing out from her back and nose. The informant suspected that his daughter has been killed by the people of her sasural. 3. On investigation, police submitted the final 4 form against the accused-petitioners showing them innocent in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, on perusal of the final form and the case diary took the cognizance of the offence against the accused-petitioners under Sections 304-B and 498- A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while the police on investigation submitted final form against the accused-petitioners, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, took cognizance of the offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against them. It has also been submitted that in the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, Niru Devi, no external injury was found. The cause of death of the deceased was found due to congestive heart failure and Anemia hypoprotecinecia and in the viscera report also, no case of poisoning was found. As such, the offence under Section 304-B is not made out against the accused- petitioners and placed reliance on the order dated 5 12.7.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. No.13320 of 2007 by this court, Annexure-‘5’ to this application. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is clear from the F.I.R. itself that the marriage of the deceased was performed in the year 1995 and the occurrence is said to be taken place on 5.12.2003, about 8 years after the marriage, hence, Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted in this case. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the witnesses in paragraphs-3, 4, 5, 7, 67 and 68 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case. 6. From the impugned order dated 4.8.2006, it appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on perusal of the case diary, specially paragraphs-3, 4, 5, 67 and 68, has come to the conclusion that prima facie case under Sections 304-B and 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused-petitioners. In the F.I.R., the informant has stated about the sign of injuries on the dead body of his daughter, Niru Devi. Paragraph-7 of the case diary goes to show that the inquest report witness, Sunil Kumar, has also stated about the sign of injuries on the dead body of Niru Devi 6 and there is also detailed in paragraph-5 of the case diary regarding the injuries on the dead body of the deceased. In paragraph-67 of the case diary, the witness has stated about the death of the deceased, Niru Devi, at her sasural and the witness reached, saw the blood oozing from the dead body of the deceased. 7. Annexure-‘5’ to this application, is an order dated 12.7.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. No.13320 of 2007. It appears from Annexure-‘5’ that a Bench of this Court has quashed the cognizance order on the ground that while in the F.I.R. suspicion was raised regarding administering the poison to the deceased but in the viscera report the poisoning case was not found, as such, the present case is different to that aforesaid case. 8. Under the aforesaid fact, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 4.8.2006 passed in Silao P.S. Case No.302 of 2003, G.R. No.1943 of 2003 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Biharsharif (Nalanda), to interfere with the same in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. So far as the submission of the learned counsel 7 for the petitioner that the deceased died after eight years of her marriage is concerned, the petitioner may raise this point at the appropriate stage in the trial court. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)