Madan Rajak and Others vs State of Jharkhand

M.Y. Eqbal, J.—Heard the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.1.2004 passed by ACJM Rajmahal in Barharwa P.S. Case No. 48/03 whereby he has held that prima facie case has made out against the petitioner u/s 304B/34, IPC and issued summons to the petitioner.

It appears that on the basis of written complaint made by the informant to the Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, case was registered against the petitioners and one Manoj Rajak u/s 304B/34, IPC. The police took up charge for investigation of the case and on inspection it was found that there is no evidence against the petitioners and, thereafter petitioners were not sent up for trial and the case found true only against Manoj Rajak for an offence u/s 300, IPC and the police submitted final report/charge-sheet on 30.11.2003 in the Court of ACJM Rajmahal.

From perusal of FIR and statement of various witnesses recorded in the case diary and also on the basis of the postmortem report the Magistrate held that prima facie case is made out u/s 304B/34, IPC against the petitioners and accordingly summons were issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order only on the ground that no case is made out against the petitioner u/s 304B/34, IPC. Learned counsel submitted that when police submitted final form against the petitioners as no prima facie material was found against them then the Magistrate committed serious illegality in issuing process against the petitioner. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel. Admittedly, petitioners are named in the FIR. The allegation made by the informant is that he got her daughter married with Monoj Rajak but after six months the accused persons started demanding dowry but due to his poor condition he could not fulfill the demand and when it was not fulfilled then the accused persons told the informant that he could not be able to see the face of his daughter. The accused persons alleged to have poured kerosene oil upon her daughter and set fire and due to that her daughter died.

It is well settled that if a person named as accused in the FIR but no final form was submitted by the police, even in such case, the Court is empowered to issue summons against the accused persons u/s 319 of the Cr PC if there are sufficient materials available on record. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that learned Magistrate found materials on record and also after considering the statements of the witnesses and the postmortem report issued summons against the petitioners. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order.

There is no merit in this application, which is accordingly rejected.