High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Birendra Kumar Pandwa @ Birendra … vs State Of Bihar on 31 August, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Birendra Kumar Pandwa @ Birendra … vs State Of Bihar on 31 August, 2010
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  Cr.Misc. No.52812 of 2007
              1. BIRENDRA KUMAR PANDWA @ BIRENDRA KUMAR S/O SHIV
                 NARAIN DAS
              2. SRI SHIV NARAIN DAS, S/O LATE BUECHU DAS
              3. MALIDA DEVI W/O SHIV NARAIN DAS
              4. DEVANAND DAS S/O SHRI SHIV NARAIN DAS
              5. RAVINDRA DAS @ RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O SRI SHIV NARAIN
                 DAS
                                                             --- PETITIONERS
                                         Versus
              1. STATE OF BIHAR
              2. SRI DAS S/O JAGRUP DAS
                                                            --- OPP.PARTIES.
                                            -----------

05 31.08.2010 A supplementary affidavit has been filed which is taken on

record.

Heard.

Petitioners are aggrieved by the order taking cognizance under

diverse Sections of the Penal Code including Sections 406, 420/34 of

the Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned

Magistrate, on the basis of the materials adduced on behalf of the

complainant in course of enquiry made under Section 202 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure Code, has found that there is/are a prima facie

case made out against the petitioners. This order was passed on

19.01.2007. The matter remained pending for more than three and half

years. By order dated 09.04.2010 a query was made about the stage of

the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to state about

the stage of trial. In the supplementary affidavit there is no averment

with respect to the stage of trial. This Court finds that at no point of

time any interim relief was granted to the petitioners. Learned counsel

submits with reference to the different documents filed along with the
supplementary affidavit that the proposed ‘Samdhi’ of the complainant

was, during the relevant date and time, posted at a different place

where he was found working. It is next contended that the story made

out in the F.I.R.is not readily believable.

This Court finds from the impugned order that in course of

inquiry witnesses supported the prosecution case. The trial must have

commenced by now. Considering the aforesaid facts as also the scope

of the jurisdiction invoked by learned trial Court, I am not inclined to

interfere with the order.

The application is dismissed.

Sym                                                  ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)