Criminal Miscellaneous No.27742 OF 1998 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------ GODAWARI DEVI wife of Sri Chidanand Choudhary, resident of village-Sonbarsa, P.S.-Bihpur, Dist.-Bhagalpur. …… ……Petitioner Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR ……. …… .Opp. Party. ------ For the petitioner: Mr. D.N.Pandey For the State: Mr. A.M.P.Mehta. ------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR -------- Rakesh Kumar,J. The petitioner, who is a lady, has approached this court with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.7.1998 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naugachhiya in Bihpur P.S. Case No.62 of 1997. By the said order the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under sections 302 and 120B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case without any evidence and the material the police forwarded her as an accused. He submits that during the investigation statement of the informant under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and in the said statement he has categorically stated that five unknown outsider accused persons had committed the crime. He never disclosed the name of this petitioner as one of the associates in the crime. He further submits that besides the informant, many other witnesses were examined under section 164 Cr.P.C. and none had even 2 whispered against this petitioner. He has also referred to several paragraphs of the case diary to impress upon the court that there is no material against this petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 4. In this case first information report was lodged against five unknown accused persons and it appears that after investigation the police submitted charge sheet against three accused persons including this petitioner and at the same time the police submitted charge sheet against two accused persons showing them as absconder. Thereafter, the court had taken cognizance of the offences by the impugned order. 5. The order dated 20.7.1998 whereby the cognizance was taken has been challenged by this petitioner by filing the present petition. The said petition was admitted on 4.12.2001 and while admitting the case this court directed that during the pendency of this application further proceeding in Bihpur P.S. Case No.62 of 1997 so far as it relates to the petitioner, shall remain stayed and the stay is continuing till date. It further appears that a report was earlier called for from the court below regarding stage of the case. The report, which is at flag ‘A’, indicates that the case was committed to the court of sessions on 1.6.2001. Meaning thereby that six months prior to grant of stay by this court the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that after commitment charge could not be framed against this petitioner as, in the 3 meanwhile, proceeding in respect of this petitioner was stayed by this court. 6. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to file a proper petition at the stage of charge. 7. Prayer is allowed. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 8. If charge has not been framed against this petitioner and a petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 227 of the Cr.P.C., it is expected that the learned court below will examine the case of the petitioner without being prejudiced by this order. It is further expected that the court will examine the entire materials available on the record with a view to come to the conclusion as to whether prima facie case against this petitioner exists or not and only thereafter the court will pass an order in accordance with law. 9. With the above observation and direction, the petition stands rejected. Patna High Court The 30th March, 2010 Md.S/NAFR ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)