CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.16338 OF 2007 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 1. Ram Sunder Jaiswal S/O Rajendra Prasad, 2. Bimla Devi W/O Ram Sunder Jaiswal, 3. Munna Kumar S/O Ram Sundar Jaiswal. All residents of Village- Balapur, P.S. Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran. ……………………….Petitioners. Versus State of Bihar ……………………Opposite Party. ----------- For the petitioner : Sri R.K.P Singh, Advocate, Sri Bal Bhushan Choudhary, Adv. For the State : Hirday Prasad Singh, APP. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---------- Rakesh Kumar, J. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of entire criminal prosecution on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the police in Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 32 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 304(B), 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code without going into the detail of the case. 2. Sri R.K.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that of course all the three petitioners along with husband of the deceased were made F.I.R. named accused and charge sheet was also submitted against all the accused persons, the husband of the deceased was put on trial vide Sessions Trial No. 395 of 2005/ 81 of 2005 and the husband of the deceased was acquitted from the charges vide judgment of acquittal dated 24.12.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to annexure 6 series to the petition, which are copy of the deposition of witnesses in Sessions Trial No. 395 of 2005, has further submitted that none of them have 2 2 supported the prosecution case against the husband and as such no purpose would be served by putting petitioners on trial. It has been submitted that directing the petitioners to face trial, subsequent to the Judgment of acquittal of husband will amount to abuse of process of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Judgment of acquittal of husband of deceased shows that at subsequent stage compromise had arrived between the parties and as such the husband was acquitted by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2003(SC)1386, (P.S. Joshi and others versus State of Hariyana) has submitted that on the basis of compromise this Court is competent to quash the order of cognizance. Learned counsel has further relied on a Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2005(1)(SCC) 478 (C.B.I. versus Akhilesh Kumar). While referring this Judgment, it has been submitted that in the said case since main accused was discharged, the charges against other accused persons were also quashed. Taking aid of the Judgment, it has been submitted that since the husband has been acquitted let the entire prosecution in respect of three petitioners be set aside. 3. Sri Hirday Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It has been submitted that even in the F.I.R. there was specific averments showing commission of offence by the three petitioners and as such at subsequent stage after collecting 3 3 sufficient material, chargesheet was submitted against the three petitioners along with husband of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the State it is not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction. 4. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the material available on record. Annexure 5 to the petition is a copy of charge sheet submitted by the police after completing investigation. The chargesheet categorically makes it clear that at the time of submission of chargesheet petitioners were shown absconder. At the time of hearing of the petition, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that subsequently the petitioners have appeared after order of cognizance and they were granted bail. Of course submission has been made at bar, but it has not been indicated that when petitioners were granted bail. 5. It appears from the record that since the petitioners remain absconder the case of husband was committed to the court of Sessions. Whatever reasons may be the husband of the deceased was acquitted by the Trial Court. 6. So far as, prayer for setting aside prosecution of petitioners on the ground of acquittal of husband of deceased is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that such submission is only required to be noticed for its rejection. All the petitioners have been shown as absconder in the chargesheet. Even in the present petition, the petitioner has not asserted as to on which date he appeared and he was granted bail. In absence of such material, it would not be appropriate to pass any favourable order in favour of the petitioners. Moreover without putting the petitioners on trial, one cannot come to a conclusion then if the 4 4 petitioners are put on trial they will be acquitted or convicted. It will depend on the basis of evidence brought before the concerned court. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case particularly conduct of petitioners, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners, which is to be exercised in exceptional and rarest of the rare cases. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 8. In view of the rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 9. Let the copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. (Rakesh Kuamr, J) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 25.10.2010, Bhardwaj