IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10334 of 2008 1. AMRISH KUMAR RAM @ AMRISH RAM, S/O LATE RAM NARAIN RAM 2. SANJAY RAM, S/O LATE RAM NARAIN RAM 3. REENA DEVI, W/O SANJAY RAM ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BHAMAPALI, P.S. BARHARIA, DISTRICT SIWAN 4. SHARDANAND RAM, S/O LATE CHHATHU RAM 5. AJAY RAM @ AJAY KUMAR RAM, S/O SHARDANAND RAM 6. VIJAY RAM @ VIJAY KUMAR RAM, S/O SHARDANAND RAM ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KHARGI, P.S. MIRGANJ, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANIL KUMAR RAM, S/O RAM SAKAL RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAURI, P.S. DARAULI, DISTRICT SIWAN .. OPPOSITE PARTIES **** /4/ 23.06.2010 Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This application is for quashing the entire proceeding under Section 304B of the Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, as alleged in the fardbeyan, is that the marriage of Anita Raj was solemnized with accused, Amrish Ram, on 25.04.2000 in accordance with the Hindu rites and there was a demand of rupees fifty thousand and Hero Honda motorcycle and for non-fulfillment of demand the accused persons, including the husband, brother of the husband and other family members continuously subjected her to cruelty and all the persons on 07.01.2005 done her to death in her sasural 2 and without any intimation disposed off the dead body. On the fardbeyan the first information report was lodged and after investigation the charge sheet has been submitted, however, during the pendency of the case petitioners 2 and 3 absconded and, hence, the process under Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code was proceeded. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that the parties have compromised and even several petitions have been filed by the informant that the deceased died out of diarrhoea and after having the knowledge he filed petition for compromise before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who disposed off the case and the informant under the influence has filed the case and even filed the compromise petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that there are six petitioners in the case and four of them have faced the trial and the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they have been acquitted. Petitioners 2 and 3 have not attended the Court and so the order of acquittal could not be passed in their favour. However, there is no such averment about the acquittal or any kind of supplementary affidavit has been filed. It has been contended that when a set of accused persons have been tried and order of acquittal recorded in their favour, the same set of witnesses are to 3 depose against two accused persons and, hence, the facts and circumstances of the case that the substantial justice may demand the acquittal of petitioners 2 and 3. An unreported decision filed appears to be taken out from electronic media of Kerala High Court of the Bench of N.K. Nair (Joy Vrs. State of Kerala), but, neither the case number nor the specification has been mentioned in the said order and, hence, it can not be relied as it neither contain the certified copy nor mention the case number. More over, the principle is unknown that the judgment will apply to an accused who has not faced the trial was absconder and not attended the Court. 6. Having regard to the fact that there is specific allegation of subjecting cruelty and death caused for which a charge sheet submitted under Section 304B of the Penal Code and petitioners 2 and 3 remained absconding and steps have been taken under Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code to extend such benefit which is unknown to law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that to do substantial justice the procedure may not come in way as one of accused acquitted so these petitioners may have acquitted on same set of evidence. However, to establish this principle that acquittal one of the accused who faced trial applied to other co-accused who have 4 not faced trial and remained absconder have a far reaching consequence particularly in serious cases under Sections 302 and 304B of the Penal Code. However, matter would have been different if the offence is of petty nature as in matrimonial cases or in the case of cheating regarding the assertion between the parties which has more of a civil nature such relief may be granted where the offence are compoundable or even if non- compoundable cognizable they have been brought under the category of compoundable for the reason of family feud, but, there is a great risk in extending this facility to the persons engaged in graver crime. 8. Hence, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, I do not think it proper to extend the benefit of acquittal to the co-accused, who did not face trial particularly when the petitioners have remained absconding and process, against them under Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code was issued. 9. I do not find any merit in this application. This application is dismissed. S.A. ( Gopal Prasad, J. )