RAMESH BURNWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.09.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 379C/2010 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui after holding enquiry has found prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Opposite party has appeared through lawyer by filing Vakalatnama but none appeared during the course of hearing of this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the death of the deceased took place due to failure of Kidney on 16.04.2009 in Deoghar Hospital. Thereafter cremation took place on 17.04.2009. The complainant did not participate in the cremation as the marriage of son of the complainant was fixed on 17.04.2009. The police after investigation has submitted final form on 06.07.2007 finding the case untrue against the petitioners, which was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui. Thereafter the complainant filed a protest petition on 15.09.2009 (Annexure 1).The learned court below on the basis of the aforesaid protest petition, after holding enquiry, found, prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences under Section 498A IPC and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act by the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no occurrence has taken place at Jamui but the case has been filed in Jamui. As per case of the complainant the deceased died in Deoghar Hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the protest petition, which was treated as complaint, was not filed in proper format. There is no mention of specific allegation or date of occurrence against the accused persons. The protest petition filed by the complainant is totally vague and on such vague protest petition the learned court below has found, prima facie, case against the petitioners. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon decisions in the case of Neelu Chopra v- Bharti, 2009 10 SCC 184 and Preeti Gupta v- State of Jharkhand, 2010 4 PLJR 36 (SC). Learned A.P.P. has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Counsel for opposite party no.2 has not appeared although his name is appearing in the Cause List.