IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1048 of 2009 SITANATH DEY Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 18.8.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, who is the complainant of Complaint Case No.2105(C) 2001, seeks quashing of the order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr.Revision No.80 of 2008, by which revision has been allowed and the order dated 10.1.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Patna in Complaint Case No.2105(C) of 2001 has been set aside. It appears that long back on 17.6.2002 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under section 498A and 304B of the Penal Code read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Against the aforesaid order taking cognizance, the accused Chiranjib Poddar filed a Criminal Revision No.782 of 2002 in the court of Sessions Judge which was dismissed on 9.9.2004. Thereafter another accused Bela Poddar and Rajddep Poddar filed a Criminal Misc.No.26848 of 2003 in this court praying for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 17.6.2002, which too was dismissed by this court by order dated 22.7.2004 and directed that the trial of the accused be proceeded in accordance with law. Thereafter the other accused Balram Poddar had also filed Cr.Misc.No.25262 of 2004 for quashing the order taking 2 cognizance dated 17.6.2002 which too was dismissed by this court by order dated 20.12.2005. The accused had filed an application under section 205 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 6.5.2006. Thereafter, the accused again filed an application under section 205 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with personal appearance in the case which was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Patna vide order dated 10.1.2008. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the accused persons filed a Cr. Revision No.80 of 2008 before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna who by order dated 21.1.2009 has set aside the order dated 10.1.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Patna in Complaint Case No.2105(C) of 2001. The learned Additional Sessions Judged held that as the application under 205 Cr.P.C. was already disposed of, the learned Magistrate by order dated 6.5.2006, did not have jurisdiction to review or recall the order dated 6.5.2008. The case of the petitioner is that even by order dated 6.5.2006 the application under section 205 Cr.P.C. was not allowed in favour of the accused persons. The grievance of the petitioner is that in a heinous case like one under section 304B of the Penal Code in which cognizance was taken way back on 17.6.2002, and a quashing application against the same was too rejected by this court in the year 2004, vide order dated 22.7.2004 passed in Cr.Misc.No.26848 of 2003, the accused persons are not 3 KHAN appearing in the case as a result of which the trial is not proceeding. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned S.D.J.M., Patna before whom the case is pending is directed to expedite the trial and would take all steps so that commitment of the case is made at the earliest and the persons against whom cognizance has been taken should appear to face trial. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioner. (S.P.Singh,J)