SONI DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shrawan Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Sri Dinesh Maharaj, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2. Three petitioners, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 13.7.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No. 374 of 2009 arising out of Desari P.S. Case No. 55 of 2008. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the petition filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the petitioners to face trial along with other seven accused persons. The F.I.R. was lodged for offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 498A, 494, 313, 120B, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of written complaint lodged by one Smt. Nishi Singh. F.I.R. was lodged against altogether 10 accused persons, which includes three petitioners. The petitioner No. 1 is married sister of husband of the informant, petitioner No. 2 is allegedly second wife of husband of the informant and petitioner No. 3 is father of alleged second wife of husband of Opp. Party No. 2. After registering the F.I.R. the police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against seven accused persons, whereas petitioners were exonerated by the police.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after the petitioners were exonerated by the police, a protest petition was filed by the informant, which was subsequently withdrawn. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions since one of the offences i.e. offence under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code was triable by the Court of Sessions and charges were framed. In this case, after charge five witnesses were examined and thereafter, a petition was filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the petitioners to face trial as accused along with other accused persons, which has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 13.7.2011. The said order is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that of course, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 had made certain statements in their depositions to show involvement of the petitioners, but they were discharged long back after their examination and after about one year, a petition under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed. He further submits that witnesses, who had allegedly supported the allegation of involvement of the petitioners, are only hearsay witnesses in the present case. One of the most important witnesses was victim, who is the informant. She was examined as P.W. 1. In her cross-examination, she has made categorical statement that she was not tortured by any of the accused persons nor any action was taken by accused persons resulting in miscarriage. The informant (P.W. 1) in paragraph-3 in her cross-examination has also disclosed that petitioner No. 2 had not solemnized marriage with her husband, rather she was one of the relative of her husband. In view of deposition of P.W. 1, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that evidence of other witnesses is not sufficient to conclusively show that the present petitioners were also involved in the present offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned Sessions Judge has incorrectly allowed the petition filed by the prosecution, which is liable to be set aside.