PUSHPA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE of the F.I.R. named accused of Sasaram (Town) P.S. Case No. 113 of 2005 through this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have prayed for the quashing of the entire prosecution case against them including the order dated 10.8.2005 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 304(B)/34 I.P.C. against the petitioners as also the charge sheet dated 9.8.2005 and supplementary charge sheet dated 31.10.2006 on the ground that they are contradictory to the finding of facts in the case diary and supervision note and as such propagating abuse of the process of the courts.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case based on the written report submitted by informant Anil Kumar Mishra, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, the marriage of his sister, Sangita Devi, was solemnized with Umesh Chandra Tripathi on 30.4.2002 whereat cash and costly items of gifts were given to her in -laws. It is alleged that Sangita was being tortured in her sasural by her in -laws for non fulfillment of the demand for a motorcycle. It is further alleged that on 5.4.2005 he received information over telephone regarding the death of his sister whereupon having informed the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas, he proceeded to the sasural of his sister and found marks of injuries on the dead body of his sister. He was sanguine that his sister was done to death by the F.I.R. named accused for non fulfillment of dowry demands.

(3.) ON the other hand, the informant having appeared to contest the application has filed a counter affidavit pleading that there are sufficient materials in the case diary for taking cognizance and there was no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.8.2005.