Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -II, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 12/2007 where by and where under, he rejected the application where by the petitioner prayed for the stay of the proceeding of Sessions Trial and further prayed that he may be tried with other accused who were made accused under section 319 Cr.P.C.
(2.) IT appears that on the written report of Abhay Upadhyay, Bokaro Steel City (Sector -IV) P.S. case No. 197/2006 dated 21.07.2006 instituted under section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner (Dharmendra Pandey) and two others namely, Gyanendra Pandey and Renu Pandey. It then appears that police after investigation submitted charge -sheet only against the petitioner under section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The record further reveals that the case of the petitioner, Dharmendra Pandey committed to the court of Sessions as the offence under section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by a court of Sessions. Accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 12/2007 instituted. Thereafter, charge framed against the petitioner. Then, prosecution examined some witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, it filed an application on 26.02.2009 under section 319 Cr.P.C. requesting the court to summon Gyanendra Pandey and Renu Pandey to face the trial along with the petitioner. Against the said application, petitioner filed rejoinder on 25.03.2009. Thereafter, both the parties were heard and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 06.10.2010 allowed the application of the prosecution and summoned Gyanendra Pandey and Renu Pandey. It appears that against the aforesaid order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the aforesaid two co -accused, filed a revision in this Court vide Cr. Revision No. 31/2011. The aforesaid Cr. Revision dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2012. Thereafter, learned Addl. Sessions Judge issued non -bailable warrant of arrest against the two co -accused. It appears that due to non -appearance of the aforesaid two co -accused, learned court below split up the case of aforesaid two co -accused from the case of this petitioner, namely, Dharmendra Pandey vide order dated 24.07.2012. and a separate sessions case instituted vide Sessions Trial No. 12/2007(S) for the absentee co -accused namely, Gyanendra Pandey and Renu Devi. It is not out of place to mention that against the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by this court in Cr. Revision No. 31/2011, co -accused Gyanendra Pandey and Renu Devi filed Special Leave to Appeal vide S.L.P.(Cr.) No. 8086/2012 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order 31.10.2012 had stayed the order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 12/2007 in so far as it relates to Gyanendra Pandey and Renu Devi. It is worth mentioning that the aforesaid S.L.P. dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.03.2014.
(3.) IT is appears from the order -sheet of the court below that after splitting the trial of petitioner with that of other two co -accused, learned court below examined almost all the material witnesses including the informant, doctor and I.O. Thereafter, on 18.12.2014, petitioner filed an application in the court below for stay of the sessions trial, so that petitioner could be tried with newly added co -accused as per provisions contained under section 319 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 17.01.2015. Against that order, present application filed.;