D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) ON 18.4.2007 Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing the order dated 8.3.2007 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 310 of 2006, whereby the learned trial Court, in exercise of its powers under Sec. 319, Cr.P.C., summoned the petitioners to face trial in the case before it vide Sessions Trial No. 310 -A of 2006.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the opposite -party No. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that a case vide Mango (Azad Nagar) P.S. Case No. 115 of 2006 dated 18.3.2006 was registered for the offence under Section 304 -B, IPC against certain accused persons named in the FIR. The allegation contained in the FIR were inter -alia, that the informant's niece was married to one Md. Shamim (accused No. 1) on 20.11.2005, but soon after the marriage, the girl began suffering torture, ill -treatment and cruelty at the hands of her husband and her in -laws on account of non -fulfillment of their demand of a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac by way of dowry. A sum of Rs. 5,000.00 was paid to the in laws of the girl on 8.3.2006, but despite such payment, torture on her continued unabated. It is alleged that apprehending danger to her life and person, the girl requested her mother on 17.3.2006 to take her away from the matrimonial house and had complained that her mother -in -law and sister -in -law besides her husband and other members of her matrimonial family have made her life miscreable and due to which, she had even contemplated to commit suicide. On the same day at about 5.00 p.m. the informant received information that the deceased had hanged herself to death from the ceiling fan. Claiming that the husband and the members of his family had aided and abetted the deceased to commit suicide, the informant lodged the aforementioned FIR which was initially registered against four persons as accused. On concluding the investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge - sheet recommending trial for the alleged offence only against the husband of the deceased, namely, Md. Shamim. Cognizance of the offence was accordingly taken against the sole accused Md. Shamim and after commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, trial had commenced before the learned Court below vide S.T. No. 310 of 2006. As many as 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the maternal grandfather of the deceased. These witnesses in their respective depositions had purportedly testified against the present petitioners also. On the basis of the incriminating evidences deposed by the witnesses against the present petitioners, the informant/opposite -party No. 2 prayed before the trial Court to summon the present petitioners also as accused directing them to face trial in the case. Rejoinder to the prayer of the informant was filed by the accused Md. Shamim who is facing trial. The learned trial Court however overruled the objection of the accused Md. Shamim and in exercise of its powers under Section 319, Cr.P.C., had proceeded to summon the present petitioners directing them to appear and face trial in the case for the said offence.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the trial Court has passed the impugned order in purported exercise of its powers under Sec. 319, Cr.P.C., without application of judicial mind and without appreciating the evidences on record in proper perspective. Learned Counsel explains that the prosecution has claimed that P.W. 2, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 have supported the prosecution's case and have deposed against the present petitioners, but even on a cursory glance at the depositions of the aforementioned witnesses, it would transpire that all of them are near relations of the deceased and, therefore, highly interested and none of them has made any direct or specific allegation against the present petitioners in respect of the offence alleged. Learned Counsel explains that the statements of these witnesses are vague and unspecific and do not throw any light whatsoever to suggest even remotely that the petitioners were involved in causing death of the deceased or that they are in any manner responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased. Learned Counsel explains further that none of the witnesses has alleged any such act on the part of the petitioners which could be construed as a direct or proximate cause for the death of the deceased and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be subjected to the rigours of the trial merely on the presumption that they being members of the matrimonial family of the deceased, are also deemed to be responsible for the death of the deceased. Amit Ambar Kachhap Versus Union Of India;