Criminal Miscellaneous No.32028 OF 1999 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ---- 1. BINOD KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LSRI GUPTESHWAR NATH SINGH. 2. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI BAIJNATH SINGH. 3. KUNTI DEVI, W/O SRI GUPTESHWAR NATH SINGH. 4. DEVANTI DEVI, S/O SRI PREM KUMAR SINGH. ALL RESIDENTS OF BHARHOPUR, P.S. EKMA, DISTT. SARAN (CHAPRA). ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJESHWAR PD. SINGH, SON OF LATE JEET NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILL. AWADHPURA, P.S. CHAPRA, MUFASIL, DISTT. SARAN (CHAPRA). ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : None For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. ---- WITH Cr.Misc. No.16419 oF 2000 ---- 1. ABHAY KUMAR SINGH, @ ASHOK KR. SINGH, SON OF SRI BAIJNATH SINGH. 2. BAIJNATH SINGH, SON OF LATE SURAJ DEO SINGH. 3. SANJOGA DEVI, W/O SRI BAIJNATH SINGH. 4. RUBI W/O SECOND, ABHAY KR. SINGH @ ASHOK KR. SINGH. ALL RESIDENTS OF BHARHOPUR, P.S. EKMA, DISTRICT SARAN (CHAPRA). ... ... PETITIOINERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE JEET NR. SINGH. RESIDENT OF VILL. AWADHPURA, P.S. CHAPRA, MUFFASIL, DISTT. SARAN (CHAPRA). ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : None. For the State : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR - 2 - Rakesh Kumar,J. Yesterday, when the case was called out, none had come forward to press these petitions. However, as a last indulgence, the case was adjourned by the following orders : “When the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners either to press these petitions or to make a prayer for adjournment. On 2.3.2000 Cr. Misc. No.32028 of 1999 was admitted and while admitting, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceedings in Complaint Case No.453 of 1999 pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Chapra so far these petitioners are concerned shall remain stayed. The order of stay is still continuing. Similarly in Cr. Misc. No.16419 of 2000, after filing the case, it was prayed to place this petition along with Cr. Misc. No.32028 of 1999 and thereafter, this petition was admitted on 18.7.2001 and while admitting, direction was given that during the - 3 - pendency of this application, further proceeding in Complaint Case No.453 of 1999 pending before the S.D.J.M., Chapra in respect of the petitioners shall remain stayed. It appears that after obtaining order of stay, the petitioners have lost their interest in the present cases and due to that reason, none has come forward to press these petitions. However, as a last indulgence, the case is adjourned for a day with an indication that if on the next date, no one appears on behalf of the petitioners, the case shall be decided on the basis of materials available on the record of the case. Put up tomorrow. 2. Today again, when the case was called out, none has come forward either to press these petitions or to make a prayer for adjournment. 3. Petitioner no.1 in Cr. Misc. No.16419 of 2000 was son-in-law of opposite party no.2. In some and substance, allegation in the case was that the daughter of opposite party no.2 was - 4 - murdered by the accused persons including husband of deceased, who is petitioner no.1 in the present case. The allegation was that after the marriage, the daughter of opposite party no.2 was regularly tortured. During her life time the petitioner no.1 solemnized second marriage with petitioner no.4 in Cr. Misc. No.16419 of 2000 i.e. Rubi. After the second marriage, as alleged in the complaint petition, the deceased daughter of opposite party no.2 had requested him to take her back. However, subsequently, she was killed by setting on fire after poring kerosene oil over her. Initially, an F.I.R. was lodged pursuant to the complaint petition by opposite party no.2. However, during investigation, the opposite party no.2 was apprehensive that the police may not do justice with the case. The reason for apprehension was that some of the relatives of the accused persons were influential and also employed in the Police Department. Accordingly, a protest petition was filed by the opposite party no.2. Thereafter, as expected, police submitted final form as mistake of fact. The protest petition filed by the opposite party no.2 was treated as complaint and after conducting enquiry in the present complaint, - 5 - the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order i.e. order dated 28.9.1999, took cognizance of offences under Sections 304B, 201, 302, 494, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, by the impugned order, first of all, four accused persons preferred a quashing application vide Cr. Misc. No.32028 of 1999. After filing of the said petition, it was taken up for the first time on 2nd March, 2000 and on the date, this petition was admitted for hearing. While admitting the case, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceedings in Complaint Case No.453 of 1999 pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Chapra so far these petitioners are concerned shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 4. After being emboldened by getting order of stay in respect of other accused persons, the husband of the deceased gathered his carriage to approach this Court for the same relief by filing Cr. Misc. No.16419 of 2000 with some other accused persons. When this petition was taken up for hearing at the point of admission on - 6 - 1.12.2000, a prayer was made to hear this petition along with Cr. Misc. No.32028 of 2000. However, subsequently, on the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the number of the case was got corrected on 16.7.2001 and, accordingly, it was directed to hear the said petition along with Cr. Misc. No.32028 of 1999. Subsequently, by order dated 18.7.2001, this petition was also admitted and directed to be heard along with Cr. Misc. No.32028 of 1999 and prayer of stay was granted in favour of the petitioners of Cr. Misc. No.16419 of 2000. 5. After going through the materials available on record, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The order of cognizance dated 28.9.1999 was passed in strict compliance with the provision of the law and there is no infirmity or defect in the said order. Accordingly, both the petitions stand rejected. 6. In view of rejection of the petitions, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 7. Keeping in view the fact that in such a serious offence, the petitioners enjoyed the order of stay for more than ten years, it is - 7 - desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously so that the matter may come to its logical end without any further delay. 8. With above observation and direction, both the petitions are rejected. (Rakesh Kumar, J.) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 14.5.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H.