DEEPIKA ALIAS SUMITRA BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eleard Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

(2.) In the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 19-6-2002 passed in Baliapur police station case No. 52/2001 corresponding to G. R. case No. 2420 of 2001 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation, inter alia, made in the first information report is that on 1-9-2001 three persons, namely, Ajit Pramanik, Shiv Prasad Mahato and Manik Pramanik informed the informant that his son, Deepak Bhandari was missing from his in-laws' house since the last night. The informant started searching for his son and when he was unable to trace him out, he alleged that the accused persons including the petitioners, at several times, threatened the informant and his deceased son. Subsequently on 3-9-2001 the informant found the dead body of his son, Deepak Bhandari hanging from a branch of the tree. The informant, therefore, alleged that the accused persons have committed the murder of his son and hanged the dead body on one of the branches of the tree.

(3.) Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reason leading to the filing of the criminal case was that the deceased was married with petitioner No. 1 and the parents of petitioner No. 1 gave cash of Rs. 90,000/-. At the matrimonial house of the petitioner the deceased husband and father-in-law and other family members assaulted her and demanded additional dowry, motor cycle etc. Learned counsel submitted that first charge -sheet was submitted against three persons and, thereafter, second and third charge-sheets were submitted against some more persons. Learned counsel submitted that no material has come in the case diary so far these petitioners are concerned. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 938 and submitted that the order of cognizance is liable to be quashed.