IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39593 of 2008 HARENDRA KISHORE SINGH @ HARENDRA SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 12.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. The petitioners pray for quashing the Govindganj P.S. Case No.136 of 2007 for the offences under sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 3265, 354, 312, 498A of the Penal Code and section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act to which section 304B of the Penal Code was added later on. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the fardbeyan giving rise to Govindganj P.S. Case No.136 of 2007 was made by the victim girl Neetu Kumari @ Pratistha Kumari, but the same has been signed by her father. He further submits that the F.I.R. itself is defective as the author of fardbeyan has herself had not signed the same. The petitioner seeks quashing of the F.I.R. on the ground that the victim girl in her statement to the police recorded in the Burn Hospital had stated that she sustained burn injuries while doing cooking and immediately thereafter her husband’s brother had tried to protect her by throwing blanket on her. It would appear from the statement of the victim girl recorded by the police that the in-laws had took her to Burn hospital for treatment. The father of the victim girl also sworn an affidavit stating therein that the narration contained in 2 KHAN the F.I.R. is not correct. In fact the police took his signature on a plain paper and inscribed the prosecution case all by itself. Counsel for the State submits that the case is at the stage of investigation and the F.I.R. may not be quashed at the threshold itself. Counsel for the informant does not deny that the father of the victim girl sworn an affidavit that the F.I.R. was not given by his daughter. It would appear from the prosecution case the victim girl although was author of the fardbeyan but her father had signed the same. On this count, the F.I.R. could be irregular but on that basis the entire prosecution case cannot be quashed. The statement of the victim girl recorded by the police, contained in Annexure-4, does not make any allegation against her in-laws. However, on that basis too, the F.I.R. need not be quashed as there is different version in the F.I.R. itself. As the investigation of the case is still continuing, it would be open to the petitioners to raise all these points before the police. With the aforesaid observations, this application stands dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J)