MRIGENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order 26.2,2004, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 2002. whereby the prayer made by the prosecution to opposite party Nos. 3 to 10 to face trial alongwith other accused person has been rejected.

(2.) Short facts giving rise to the present application are that an unidentified dead body of .a lady was found within the jurisdiction of Punpun Police Station. It gave rise to registration of Punpun PS. case no. 45 of 2001 under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on the dead body was found to be that of the daughter of the petitioner and the petitioner alleged torture and harassment to her on account of demand of dowry and her death, other than in the normal circumstance. The police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the husband of the deceased, who was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions. By order dated 23.9.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 2002, charges were framed against the husband of the deceased under Sections 302/304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. During his trial two witnesses were examined, who happen to be the brother and father of the deceased According to the prosecution, their evidence show the involvement of opposite party Nos. 3 to 10 in the commission of the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, prosecution filed an application to summon those accused in exercise of the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The learned Judge by the impugned order rejected the prayer of the prosecution.

(3.) Mr. Kundan Bahadur Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that while exercising the power under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judge exceeded in its jurisdiction by appraising the evidence as if he was finally deciding the case. He points out that at this stage the learned Judge was only obliged to consider whether from the evidence it appears that any person not being the accused has committed any offence and he was not obliged to go into the great details, as has been done by him. while passing the impugned order and this itself vitiates his order.