BIJAY PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.4.2012 passed by the learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in S.T No. 162 of 2011, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 Cr.P.C., for discharge has been rejected by the Court below.

(2.) THE petitioners have been made accused in Kenduadih P.S. Case No. 16 of 2010 corresponding to G.R No.918 of 2010, which was initially instituted for the offence under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in which the petitioners were made accused. The petitioner No.8 Ranjay Prasad, is the husband, petitioner No.9 Shiv Balak Prasad, is father -in -law, the petitioner No.10 Radhika Devi, is the mother - in -law and petitioner No.11 Anjay Prasad @ Anjay Kumar, is brother -in -law, of the victim respectively, and there is allegation against them in the F.I.R to have subjected the victim to cruelty and torture. So far as other petitioners are concerned, it is apparent from the F.I.R itself that they were not residing in -laws place of the informant, rather, it is alleged that they used to support the other accused persons whenever they came there. It appears that after investigation, charge -sheet has been submitted for the offences under Sections 498A, 307/ 34 of the I.P.C., and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and cognizance was also taken for the said offences against all the accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the petitioners filed the application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below. It appears from the impugned order that the Court below in a mechanical way has rejected the same stating that there are sufficient materials to frame charges against all the accused persons for the offences, as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the entire F.I.R. there is no allegation to support the offence of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, though it is alleged that the victim was being assaulted and it is only alleged that on 5.2.2010, the husband and mother in law sprinkled kerosene oil on her, but there is no allegation that she was either put to fire or she was ever assaulted with intention to cause her death. It is also submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners Nos. 1 to 7, except that they used to support the other accused persons whenever they came there. It is submitted that these petitioners have been made accused only in order to harass them, being the relatives of the husband of the informant. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in eyes of law.

(3.) IN view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned order dated 12.4.2012 passed by learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Session Trial No. 162 of 2011, is hereby, set aside and the Court below is directed to pass the order afresh in accordance with law. The Court below shall also consider whether the offence, if any, is made out against the petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 on the basis of the material brought against them, if any, during investigation, or they have been made accused only with a view to harass them, being the relatives of the husband of the victim. The Court below shall also consider the desirability for adding Section 307 of the IPC against rest of the petitioners in view of the allegation made in the FIR and the evidence gathered during investigation, if any.