IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1087 of 2010 1. CHIRANJIB PODDAR, S/o Balram Poddar 2. RAJDEEP PODDAR S/o Balram Poddar 3. BELA PODDAR W/o Balram Poddar 4. BALRAM PODDAR, S/o late S.C. Poddar. All resident of BC 29/1, Sector 1, Salt Lake City, Bidhannagar Kolkata 700014. . . . . Petitioners. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SITA NATH DEY s/o late Shyam Sunder Dey, Resident of 19/06 Karunamoyee Salt Lake, P.S. Bidhannagar (East), Kolkatta 700091. . . . . . . Opposite parties. ----------- 9/ 09.02.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners, who are accused in Complaint case no. 2105 C of 2001 under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act seeks modification of order dated 18.08.2010 passed by this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1048 of 2009 filed by one Sita Nath Dey, complainant/respondent on the ground that the latter suppressed vital material facts in the writ application. 3. The complainant/ respondent no.2 Sita Nath Dey filed writ application raising grievance that though cognizance has been taken on 17.06.2002 under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of the I.P.C., still no progress has taken place in the case and as such the complainant sought direction of this Court to the S.D.J.M., Patna to expedite the proceeding. He also prayed for quashing the order dated 21.01.2009 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Rev. No. 80 of 2008, by which the revision was allowed and order dated 10.01.2008 passed under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. has been set aside. The complainant in his petition stated that the husband Chiranjib Poddar preferred a Cr. Rev. no. 782 of 2002 against the 2 order taking cognizance under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 09.09.2004. The other accused Bela Poddan and Rajdeep Poddar filed Cr. Misc. No. 26848 of 2003 and Balram Poddar filed Cr. Misc. No. 25262 of 2004 against order of cognizance dated 17.06.2002, which too were dismissed by a Bench of this Court on 22.07.2004 and 20.12.2005 respectively. 4. As the complainant substantially sought expeditious disposal of the case, this Court directed the S.D.J.M., Patna in seisin of the case to expedite the trial and would take all steps so that the commitment of case made at earliest and the persons against whom cognizance has been taken should appear to face trial. The direction of this Court dated 18.08.2010 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1048 of 2009 is quoted herein below: “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.” 5. Now the accused/petitioners of complaint case no. 2105 C of 2001 pending before the S.D.J.M., Patna under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of the I.P.C. has filed instant application for modification of order dated 18.08.2010. 6. The prayer portion would show that the petitioners herein sought two modifications’, which are quoted herein below:- (i) “To add the word “NOT” before the word……….disposed off by the learned 3 Magistrate in para no.2 at page no.2 of the order sheet. (ii) To take all steps as directed by the ADJ III, Patna and without the same being fully exhausted and records being called, no coercive steps should be taken.” 7. The petitioners submit that the application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. was not finally disposed of by S.D.J.M., Patna vide order dated 06.05.2006 and the same is still pending for want of records of North Bidhannagar P.S. case no. 155 of 2001, in which the accused was discharged by S.D.J.M., Barrackpur. A copy of order dated 06.05.2006 passed by S.D.J.M., Patna has been annexed as Annexure-3 to this modification application. 8. This Court had not made any adjudication in respect of matters relating to Section 205 of Cr.P.C. It appears from order dated 06.05.2006 that application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. was pending and order dated 18.08.2010 in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1048 of 2009 stands modified to the extent indicated above. 9. Now I proceed to deal with the second and final modification sought by petitioners, which has been quoted in para. 6(ii) of this order and the same is reproduced for convenience. 10. The accused/petitioners states as follows: The complainant had suppressed materials facts from this Court in his writ application. Both complainant and the petitioners hail from West Bengal. Sunetra Poddar, wife of Chiranjib Poddar (petitioner no.1) committed suicide on 03.08.2001. She left a suicide note, in which she did not make allegations either against the husband or his family members. The complainant filed a Complaint before 4 S.K.Puri P.S., Patna, which was registered as U.D. case no. 01 of 2001 and after enquiry it was found to be a mere case of suicide by hanging and thus police submitted final report to S.D.O., Patna. Furthermore, the father of the deceased concealing the aforesaid fact, lodged an F.I.R. at Bidhannagar police station, in which police submitted final form as mistake of law for having no jurisdiction but the S.D.J.M., Calcutta did not accept the report and summoned the complainant in the court. The S.D.J.M. Calcutta with the consent of the complainant closed the case and discharged the accused. The petitioners allege that the complainant concealed all these facts in the complaint case bearing Complaint Case no. 2105 C of 2001 pending before S.D.J.M., Patna. They further submit that the complainant concealed all these facts from this Court in the writ application. The learned S.D.J.M., Patna ignoring all these facts, took cognizance on 17.06.2002 under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of the I.P.C. They submit that continuance of the prosecution before S.D.J.M., Patna under Section Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of the I.P.C. is barred under Section 462 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel representing petitioners submit that these days it has become a habit that whenever woman dies within seven years of her marriage, a case under Section 304(B) of the I.P.C. is habitually lodged either by her parents or members of her parents side. He submits that such mentality has been deprecated by a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in case of Narender Singh Arora V. State (Government. Of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Passed in Cr. Rev. No. 555 of 2003. 11. Counsel for the complainant states that the accused 5 Chiranjib Poddar filed a Cr. Rev. no. 782 of 2002 against the order taking cognizance under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 09.09.2004. Thereafter other accused Bela Poddar and Rajdeep Poddar filed Cr. Misc. No. 26848 of 2003 and Balram Poddar filed Cr. Misc. Cr. Misc. 25262 of 2004 against the order of cognizance, which too were dismissed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2004 and 20.12.2005 respectively. 12. This Court on 04.11.2010 while issuing notice to opposite party made observation for expeditious trial and the persons against whom cognizance has been taken should appear to face trial. This Court further observed that if petitioners are on bail and appear in the court within five weeks, the learned Magistrate / Judge would allow them to remain on previous bail. 13. Counsel for the complainant has asserted that the accused persons are not on previous bail in the instant case and cognizance under Sections 498(A) and 304 (B) of the I.P.C. have been taken against them way back in the year 2002. The complainant has also submitted that Bidhannagar P.S. case was no more pending and the police had also submitted Final form as mistake of law for having no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. Subsequently, the S.D.J.M., Calcutta discharged the accused from that case. 14. The factual position is that petitioner no.1 namely Chiranjib Poddar, the husband of the deceased and petitioner no.2 Rajdeep Poddar have been taken into custody in Complaint case no. 2105 C of 2001 pending before S.D.J.M., Patna. The anticipatory bail 6 application of both petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have been rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Patna way back on 04.12.2004 and 24.03.2006 respectively, as such the modification sought for directing that no coercive steps should be taken against them cannot be granted for the following reasons; Firstly the prayer in respect of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have become infructuous, as they are already in custody. Besides this cognizance has been taken in this case under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of the I.P.C. and even the quashing applications filed on behalf of all the four petitioners have been rejected either by the learned Sessions Judge or a Bench of this Court. The quashing application of Chiranjib Poddar has been dismissed on 09.09.2004 vide Cr. Rev. No. 782 of 2002 and the Quashing application filed by Bela Poddar and Rajdeep Poddar have been dismissed by a Bench of this Court on 22.07.2004 vide Cr. Misc. No. 26848 of 2003. The quashing application of Balram Poddar had also been rejected by this Court on 20.12.2005 vide Cr. Misc. No. 25262 of 2004. However, it would be open for the petitioners, who have been taken into custody to move regular bail in accordance with law, which would be decided on its own merit. 15. It is relevant to state here that this Court had not interfered with order passed under 205 of Cr.P.C. in its order dated 18.08.2010 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1048 of 2009. 16. This Court also observes that the fair pleading warranted that the complainant should disclose all the relevant facts vis-à-vis relief prayed for. The complainant ought to have disclosed the facts regarding registering of earlier U.D. case with S.K. Puri P.S. 7 case as well as regular case with Bidhannager police station. This Court does not appreciate the non-disclosure of the aforesaid facts. The petitioners would be at liberty to take appropriate measure in accordance with law against the complainant for his assertion that the complainant had suppressed some material facts from this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 1048 of 2009. 17. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)