IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49905 of 2008 1. BINAY KUMAR RAI 2. BANDANA DEVI @ BIND BASHINI DEVI 3. RAM EKWAL RAI @ RAM EKWAL PRABHAKAR 4. PUNAM DEVI W/O DEEPAK KUMAR 5. PUSHPA DEVI 6. PUNAM DEVI D/O BINAY KUMAR RAI AND W/O PREM KUMAR, ALL RESIDENT OF LALPURA, PAHARPUR, BHAGWANPUR, VAISHALI. VERSUS 1. STATE OF BIHAR & 2. BISHWANATH RAI. ----------- 2. 12.04.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioners have come to this Court for quashing order dated 3.9.2008, passed by the Addl. Sessions judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Tr no. 217 of 2007 arising out of Bhagwanpur Police Station case no. 33 of 2006, GR No. 833 of 2006 by which the trial court has rejected the discharge petition dated 20.6.2007 filed u/s 217 Cr.P.C. Petitioners submit that admittedly marriage took place in the year 1999 and alleged occurrence happened on 15.3.2006. The informant alleges the accused persons after torture committed murder of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that the allegation of hiding the dead body is entirely false and in support of his submission, he refers to the inquest report and post mortem report to show that the deceased was not murdered, rather she succumbed to the injuries received on account of fall. He further submits that inquest report and post mortem report belies allegation that the dead body has been done away. He submits that there is nothing specific in the FIR that marriage took place prior to 15.3.1999 or after that. Learned counsel further submits that Sessions judge while rejecting the application ought to have discussed statement of witnesses in stead of making mere - 2 - reference. He further submits that there was demand of dowry prior to institution of the case under section 498A I.P.C., in which compromise has taken place. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dead body was not done away with, as such, allegation in the FIR that the dead body was done away with, does not seem convincing in view of inquest report and the post mortem report. From the perusal of the FIR it appears that informant has alleged that after compromise, the accused persons began to torture again. The husband in league with other family members contracted another marriage. The accused persons together tortured her resulting into her killing. It would appear from the order of the learned sessions judge, that the informant has corroborated the prosecution case in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is true that he has not discussed the statement of witnesses, save and except stating that he too has supported the prosecution case. Leaned counsel in the petition no where stated that aforesaid witnesses have not supported prosecution case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order rejecting the prayer of discharge of petitioners, in aforesaid case, lodged under sections 304B, 201/34 of the I.P.C. The instant petition is dismissed as such. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)