IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18391 of 2007 1. POONAM DEVI, wife of Anil Sao. 2. Anil Sao son of Vidaiya Sagar Sao. Both are wife and husband, residents of Village – Langhaura, Police Station – Harnaut, District – Nalanda, at present - Bahadurpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna – 800 013, Police Station – Kadamkuan, District – Patna. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Nagendra Sah son of late Laldhary Sah, resident of Village – Naya Basy Sarari, Police Station – Pattory, District – Samastipur. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. S M Ehtesham For Opposite party No.2: M/S. Rajiv Roy and Arun Kumar. ---- 05. 11.05.2009 Let the name of petitioner No.1 Poonam Devi be deleted in view of the fact that by judgment dated 31st August, 2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 2006 and 626 of 2006, she along with other persons stand discharged by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Nalanda at Biharsharif. The application now is confined in regard to petitioner No.2 only. Petitioner No.2 stands chargesheeted under sections 498A, 304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case in question is Harnaut P S Case No. 89 of 2004 which came to be instituted by the father of the deceased girl who was taken away and eliminated by the accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since other accused persons, who were sent up for trial stand acquitted by judgment dated 31st August, 2007, no purpose will be served now by allowing the petitioner No.2 to face trial in the matter. In support of the said contention by way of supplementary affidavit, the said judgment has been brought on record. - 2 - Learned counsel representing opposite party no.2 submits that a bare perusal of the said decision of acquittal does not inspire confidence since the reason given in para 10 of the judgment is dehorse the law. Para 10 of the said judgment is of vital importance. Not only this, opposite party No.2 had apprehended a situation of the kind and almost a year ago he had filed an informatory petition. The explanation sought to be issued with regard to death and circumstances of the death as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not convincing. Since this Court is not sitting in a jurisdiction where the correctness or otherwise of judgment dated 31.8.2007 is being looked into, the Court must record its grave reservation in the manner and for the reason learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3 has based his judgment on the acquittal of the accused persons. That is a matter to be looked into under the appropriate jurisdiction at the appropriate time. Primarily the Court is of the considered opinion and also keeping the above facts is of the opinion that , it is not a fit case for quashing the order taking cognizance, more so when petitioner was an absconder of the kind under law, since that is the reason the trial had to be separated. No case for interference is made out. The application is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)