IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1155 of 2006
1. Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar
2. Parvati Devi -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Jagdish Prasad -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --Opposite Parties
--------
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Sinha
—-
For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Advocate
—
/ 16.3.2011 Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for certain relief i.e. for
quashment of the order dated 5.9.2005, by which cognizance of the offence
was taken under Sections 498A/304(B) of the Indian Penal Code as also
under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has appeared after receipt of the
notice.
Mr. Mazumdar, the learned Sr. Counsel, at the outset, submitted that he
is not pressing the prayer that has been made in the main petition for
quashment of the order dated 5.9.2005. As a matter of fact, petitioners had
not surrendered in the court. By filing I.A. No.464 of 2011, petitioners though
requested that they be enlarged on bail on surrender before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Hazaribagh in view of the earlier orders
dated 5.9.2005, 5.2.2007 and 11.6.2009 but the petitioners now want that they
should be protected on their surrender before the court concerned as the
processes have been issued under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against them.
It would be relevant to mention, Mr. Mazumdar added, that the
husband, who was facing charge under Sections 498A/304(B) of the Indian
Penal Code , was acquitted after trial on the evidence adduced on behalf of
the prosecution witnesses that Gudia sustained burn injuries while she was
extinguishing fire. The father-informant of Gudia was produced as P.W.-6, who
was consistent that there was no demand of dowry and that husband of Gudia
had never tortured her in any manner. P.W.-2, who was the neighbour,
testified that Gudia suffered some mental imbalance and that at the relevant
time when the fire broke out, husband was not in the house. Now the
petitioners are ready to face the trial, though the principal accused has been
acquitted and therefore, some protection may be given to them in case of
surrender.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant puts no objection and
submitted that misunderstanding between the parties has been removed and it
would not be out of place to mention that the Investigating Officer after
investigation had submitted final form initially showing the mistake of facts but
on the protest petition of the informant, complaint was lodged.
Considering the entire stock of the situation as well as the fact
produced on behalf of the petitioners, I find that their prayer needs
consideration. Accordingly, in the event of their surrender in the trial court
within twenty days of this order and presentation of a petition under Section
437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, same may be considered in view of
the fact that principal accused has been acquitted by the trial court.
With these observations, this petition is disposed of.
Accordingly, I.A. No.464 of 2011 also stands disposed of.
Let the order be communicated through FAX on the cost to be
deposited on behalf of the petitioners.
(D.K. Sinha, J.)
S.B.