Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 266 of 2016 --- 1. Sabitri Devi, wife of Jagdish Tiwari, 2. Jagdish Tiwari, son of late Ram Briksh Tiwari, 3. Ajit Kumar Tiwari, son of Jagdish Tiwari, all are resident of village, P.O. Baidakala, P. S. Patan, District - Palamau … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sachitanand Dubey, son of late Rajeshwar Dubey, resident of village, P.O. Barigaon, P.S. Bishrampur, District - Palamau … … Opp. Party --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, A.P.P. --- 06/06.11.2017 Heard Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the State. In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 15.12.2015 passed in Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - IV, Palamau at Daltonganj by virtue of which the order dated 20.04.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in Patan P. S. Case No. 161 of 2006 has been affirmed. A First Information Report was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 herein in which it was stated that the deceased who was the niece of the informant was married with the petitioner no. 3 in April, 2005. It has been alleged that gift worth Rs. 2,00,000/- were given. There was a demand of a motorcycle which was not fulfilled for which the deceased was tortured by the accused persons. It has been alleged that on 28.09.2006 the informant had taken the deceased to his village and on 01.10.2006 the accused persons took her back to her matrimonial house against the will of the informant and the deceased. It has also been alleged that on 02.10.2006 the informant received an information that his niece had died due to drowning. The informant was of the belief that the accused persons had murdered his niece. Based on the aforesaid allegation Patan P. S. Case No. 161 of 2006 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet against Anugrah Narayan Tiwary @ Santosh Kumar Tiwary under Section 304(B) and 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the -2- investigation was kept pending against the petitioners. Cognizance was taken on 18.12.2006 and the charge-sheet had been submitted against Anugrah Narayan Tiwary @ Santosh Kumar Tiwary. Subsequently, however, on 31.08.2010 charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners on 21.10.2010 and cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The order dated 21.10.2010 was under challenge in Cr.M.P. No. 556 of 2011 before this Court and vide order dated 13.05.2011 the order taking cognizance was set aside and the learned court below was directed to pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. Based on the material available on record pursuant to the order of remand dated 13.05.2011 cognizance was taken by the learned court below on 20.04.2012 which was challenged before the learned session court in Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2012 which was however dismissed on 15.12.2015. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that charge-sheet against the petitioners was submitted after four years from the date of institution of the case. It has been stated that in course of investigation no material has been collected by the Investigating Officer revealing the complicity of the petitioners but this fact has never been taken into consideration by the learned court below while taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners to face the trial. It has been stated that the orders passed by the learned court below does not disclose any reasons which is contrary to the order dated 13.05.2011 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 556 of 2011. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. A perusal of the impugned order dated 20.04.2012 reveals that the court below had indicated sufficient reasoning of there being a prima facie case in existence against the petitioners. The order dated 15.12.2015 passed by the learned revisional court has further supplemented the order dated 20.04.2012 by mentioning various paragraphs of the case diary which goes to show about the complicity of the petitioners. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State and the learned A.P.P. had also produced the case diary before this Court. From perusal of the case diary, it appears that the paragraph - 3 is the restatement of the informant in which she has supported the contents of the Fardbayan. -3- Para - 4 is the statement of Jitendra Kumar Dubey who is the cousin brother of the deceased and who has fully supported the prosecution case with respect to the demand and torture as also taking back the deceased to her matrimonial house and subsequently on the next date the deceased was found killed. Para - 5 of the case diary contains the statements of several witnesses who all have supported the prosecution case. Although learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the statement of some independent witnesses to bolster his contention that no offence is made out against the petitioners but at this stage the court below has only to see the existence of a prima facie case. The court below is not required to give detailed reasonings while taking cognizance after submission of charge- sheet. The impugned order dated 20.04.2012 is in accordance with law and the revisional court's order dated 15.12.2015 further substantiates the existence of a prima facie case against the petitioners. In view of the reference made to various paragraphs of the case diary which has also been referred to by this order save and except Paragraph 38 which seems to be an error of record as the same is not material to discuss about the pros and cons of the case this Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not required to interfere or make meticulous examination of the evidence of the witnesses in course of investigation, neither can it sift or weigh the evidence which has been so collected. Thus there being a prima facie case in existence against the petitioners, the orders impugned having been passed in accordance with law does not require any interference by this Court and accordingly this application is disposed of with a liberty the petitioners to raise all the points at the appropriate stage. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-