- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel for the State. No one has appeared for the opposite party No.2 in spite of service of notice.
(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 13.11.2003 passed by the learned 5th A.J.C.-cum-F.T.C., Ranchi, in S.T. No. 406 of 1997, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., has been rejected by the Court below, holding that there are sufficient materials against the petitioners in the case diary for proceeding against them and for framing of charge under Sections 498A, 304-B and 120-B of the I.P.C. The facts of the case lie in a short compass. Bariatu (Gonda) P.S Case No. 88 of 1996, corresponding to G.R. No. 2496/1996 was lodged by the informant opposite party No.2, in which, the petitioner Kapil Deo Sharma and his family members, including his wife son and daughter, were made accused for the offence under Sections 304-B and 201 of the I.P.C., with the allegation of committing the dowry death of the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, Kapil Deo Sharma. The petitioner Raju @ Kumar Rajnish is the brother-in-law of the deceased. It appears that the petitioners were apprehended in this case and an interim charge-sheet was filed only against these two petitioners by the police on 22.11.1996, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to this application. In the said interim charge-sheet, it is mentioned that the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners, Kapil Deo Sharma and Raju @ Kumar Rajnish, whereas, the case was kept pending for investigation against the other co- accused persons. It further appears that on 30.9.1998, the police after investigation finally submitted the final form in favour of all the accused persons finding the case to be 'mistake of fact'. The final form submitted by the police has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to this application. Subsequently, a letter was also given by the Officer-in-charge of Bariatu (Gonda) police station to the concerned A.P.P, Ranchi, for withdrawing the said case. By order dated 18.10.2000, passed in the said Bariatu (Gonda) P.S Case No. 88 of 1996, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, the final form was accepted. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-5, which shows that before accepting the final form, the notice was issued to the informant and since no objection or protest petition was filed by the informant, the final form was accepted by the leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate. However, it appears that the case of the petitioners was already committed to the Court of Session prior to the acceptance of the final form, on the basis of which, S.T Case No. 406 of 1997 was instituted and the proceeding before the Court of Session was going on. Upon filing of the final form and acceptance of the same by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, the petitioners filed the application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C, wherein, it was mentioned that after investigation, the police had submitted the final form in favour of all the accused persons including the petitioners, finding the case to be 'mistake of fact'. However, by the impugned order dated 13.11.2003, the Court below came to the conclusion that there are materials in the case diary for proceeding against these two accused persons under Sections 498A, 304-B and 201 of the I.P.C., and the case was adjourned for framing of charge.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a piquent situation has arisen, inasmuch as, the petitioners who were unfortunately arrested by the police and the interim charge-sheet was submitted against them, only in order to deprive the petitioners the benefit of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners are compelled to face the trial, whereas no action has been taken against the other co-accused persons, in whose favour, ultimately the final form was submitted and accepted by the learned Court below. LEARNED counsel, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, inasmuch as from the materials on record, the Court below found that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against these petitioners.;