BIRBAL MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 18.9.2012, passed in Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 324 of 2005 (G.R. No. 1983/2005, T.R. No. 1535/2012), whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304B, 306 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. It is the case of the prosecution that the informant's daughter Arti Devi @ Parwati Devi, got married with one Vikash Kumar Kushwaha, son of the petitioners. After some days of the marriage, the husband started putting pressure upon his wife to bring Rs. 2 lakhs from her parent house. This was being communicated by the deceased to her father, i.e. the informant, but since, he was not capable to make payment, he did not pay the amount and, thereafter, when her daughter was found dead, suspicion was raised that the accused persons, i.e. the husband as well as these two petitioners had committed the offence. The matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation, the police did not find the allegation to be true as earlier to lodgment of the case one U.D. Case was lodged wherein it had been stated that before the death of the deceased, she was having stomach-ache and was under treatment. However, F.S.L. report did indicate that Oregano Phosphorous Pesticide was found in the viscera. On filing of the final report exonerating the petitioners from the accusation, a protest petition was filed, upon which the Court, on the basis of the materials collected during investigation, took cognizance of the offence, as aforesaid, vide order dated 18.9.2012, which is under challenge.

(2.) Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it was specific case, which has been made in the FIR that it was the husband (since died) of the deceased, who was putting forth the demand, whereas no allegation whatsoever is there in the FIR regarding demand of dowry or subjection to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, against these two petitioners. So far statements of the witnesses are concerned, they also do seem to have stated in specific term against the petitioners for putting forth the demand and that they have also not stated about deceased being subjected to cruelty by these petitioners and under the circumstances, the Court seems to have taken cognizance of the offence against these petitioners only on suspicion and, thereby, it committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners.

(3.) On perusal of the records, I do find substance in the submissions, advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners, who happen to be the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, have never been alleged to have put forth any dowry demand or subjected the deceased to cruelty. However, since Forensic Science Laboratory discloses that the death was caused on account of administration of Oregano Phosphorous Pesticides, cognizance of the offence under Sections 304B, 302, 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has been taken against the petitioners. But, there does not seems to be any material against the petitioners for constituting any of the offence, under which cognizance has been taken. Therefore, the Court seems to have committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 18.9.2012, taking cognizance, is hereby quashed. In the result, this application stands allowed.